Weird how the human rights record of Yemen is suddenly an important news topic right when the West is ramping up for military conflict with them. It must have just started, because otherwise this would be a cynical ploy to drum up support for war.
"Weird how when something is in the news, say for attacking civilian shipping in the most used sea lane in the world, it gets more scrutiny! I am going to attribute this to Imperialist Scheming(tm)"
Fucking horrific. This is 2024, and we're still doing this shit? I have two - count 'em, two - LGBTQ+ kids, and I'm so goddamn glad we don't live in a murderous shit-hole like that.
Go figure, a lot of people don't care about your fundamentalist backwards brethren poking Israël with a stick and then hiding behind civilians so they can cry in the media when innocents die.
Legit question - is there any actual grounds for the "terrorist" label other than striking at a long term oppressive occupying force? Cause ive not seen anyone show any receipts past calling Oct 7 "terrorism" or their overall governance as "extreme" (which, again, makes sense to me after 50 some years of oppression and occupation.)
Deliberately targeting civilians qualifies as terrorist and that's exactly what they've been doing. There's also no need, like, not a single need or even excuse, to associate the Palestinian cause specifically with Hamas. It's like turning up at an environmentalist rally with a sign glorifying the Unabomber.
Murdering and kidnapping civilians with the purpose of enacting their political goals does fit the label of terrorism. Then again, Israel does also murder and kidnap Palestinian civilians (and I mean kidnaps, because they don't have the legal grounds to imprison people at the West Bank) for the sake of their political goals, and they don't get called terrorists. So I call both Hamas and Israel terrorists, but a good general corollary is that there's always political motivation behind someone using or not using that label.
This is my main issue - in a vacuum sure it'd be terrorism but in this instance I don't see how one side is terrorist but one side is heroic other than "brown bad, white gud." I'm trying to be open minded but Zionists don't really have an argument past "fuck you sympathizer"
If you want a general ethical position on the issue that I have found consistent so far:
Hamas is fundamentally different from other liberation groups, in that Hamas doesn't intend to integrate the descendants of colonizers into the country they want Palestine (the whole of it) to be. For instance, the ANC saw the white South Africans as South Africans - they were colonizers, sure, but they would be citizens of the country they intended to rule, so instead of targeting civilians, they attacked military targets and infrastructure.
We see everyday what the Israeli government does on this sub, any person who isn't predisposed in their favor can easily understand that they're a few steps away from going full nazi.
The vast majority of civilians on both sides are innocent, and don't deserve to be brutalized.
So it isn't really a matter of whether you prefer Israel or Hamas, it is first and foremost, a matter of making sure civilians aren't subject to abuse, and are capable of living their lives freely and in peace. Of course, it also needs to be understood that the construct that is the political system of Israel-Palestine (this is, only Israel exists as a sovereign country, while "Palestine" is a couple of not too self-governed territories over which Israel practices sovereignity) provokes a continued abuse and misery that will ignite further conflict sooner or later. So while the first priority is getting a cease fire now, aiming for a real, practical 2 state solution or 1 state solution where both Palestinians and Israelis are free citizens without being subject to the whims of the other party is needed if we don't want to have a similar mess in 5, 10 or 20 years.
Hamas is fundamentally different from other liberation groups, in that Hamas doesn’t intend to integrate the descendants of colonizers into the country they want Palestine (the whole of it) to be. For instance, the ANC saw the white South Africans as South Africans - they were colonizers, sure, but they would be citizens of the country they intended to rule, so instead of targeting civilians, they attacked military targets and infrastructure.
Well that's false. If anything Hamas with their 33% military kill rate on Oct7 has a one of the lowest civilian-casualty in a resistance movement. Their attacks were extremely targeted towards military bases as well. But whaddaya know. Whitewash the history a bit and the ANC all become angels. Why was Nelson Mandela on the terrorist list again? We love that guy! He was the peace guy right?
And also, Hamas has already put a 2 state deal on the table recently. If israel accepts it Hamas would then give up their expelling of israeli colonists. However israel in its infinite wisdom decides that while it is in power it will not make any compromises.
The ANC repeated its position that the armed struggle against the country's white-ruled government, which began in 1960, was a just war and that civilians had not been deliberately targeted.
But the ANC statement said some of its guerrillas weren't sufficiently trained and "were never thoroughly under the discipline of the ANC."
Avoiding harming civilians was a deliberate modus operandi of the ANC, the same way that Hamas deliberately kidnapped civilians. They cannot be blamed for attacking military bases - they should be blamed for attacking that which was neither military bases nor infrastructure.
So the ANC gets all the benefit of the doubt (in hindsight of course. Not while it's happening) but Hamas which is working with people that have been locked into a concentration camp for 20 years are all supposed to be angels. Was Hamas working with a well trained military while locked inside of their concentration camp having to plan a giant operation in utmost secrecy?
Hamas was far more disciplined than the American military was in Iraq during Oct7. All while having suffered far more aggression.
The kidnapping thing you can condemn but Hamas has no other option to get their own hostages out which are deep in israeli territory. And israel doing it was fine with everyone.
The real bad thing was some soldiers deliberately killing unarmed Israelis. But again the rate (civilian casualty %) at which that happened was far lower than almost any insurgency. You don't get people risking their lives to invade concentration camp guardposts if they're not very very angry.
NameDateLocationDeadInjuredNotesRefEgged bus 960 bombingSeptember 5, 1999Tveria01Hamas claimed responsibility.[27][28]Haifa Central Bus Station bombingSeptember 5, 1999Haifa00Hamas claimed responsibility.[27][29]
]
2000s
Kissufim bombing July 9, 2001 Southern Gaza Strip crossing point 0 0 Hamas claimed responsibility. [53]
Binyamina train station suicide bombing July 16, 2001 Binyamina 2 11 Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. [54]
Moshav Beka'ot bombing August 8, 2001 Northern Jordan Valley 0 1 Hamas claimed responsibility. [55]
Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing August 9, 2001 Jerusalem 16 130 Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. [56]
Wall Street Cafe bombing August 12, 2001 Kiryat Motzkin 0 21 Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. [57][58][59]
Hanevi'im street bombing September 4, 2001 Jerusalem 0 21 Hamas claimed responsibility. [60]
Jerusalem car bombings September 4, 2001 Jerusalem 0 23 Series of car bombs. [61] [62]
Nahariya train station suicide bombing September 9, 2001 Nahariya Railway Station 3 94 Suicide bomber was an Arab Israeli citizen. Hamas claimed responsibility. [63]
Beit Lid junction bombing September 9, 2001 Near Netanya 0 11 Hamas claimed responsibility. [64][65]
Kibbutz Shluhot bombing October 7, 2001 Kibbutz Shluhot 1 0 Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. [30][66]
Kibbutz Be'eri Suicide Bombing October 17, 2001 Kibbutz Be'eri 0 2 The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility. [67]
Erez Crossing attack November 26, 2001 Erez Crossing 0 2 Hamas claimed responsibility. [68]
1st Egged bus 823 bombing November 29, 2001 Haifa 3 9 Carried out by Palestinian Islamic Jihad together with Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. [69][70]
Ben Yehuda Street Bombing December 1, 2001 Downtown Jerusalem 11 188 Hamas claimed responsibility. [71]
Haifa bus 16 suicide bombing December 2, 2001 Haifa 15 40 Hamas claimed responsibility. [72]
Hilton Mamilla bombing December 5, 2001 Mamilla, Jerusalem 0 11 Carried out by Palestinian Islamic Jihad together with Hamas. [55]
Check Post Junction bus bombing December 9, 2001 Haifa 0 30 A second unexploded device was found nearby. [68]
Neve Dekalim bombing December 12, 2001 Neve Dekalim 0 4 Hamas claimed responsibility. [73]
"A couple of dudes amongst widespread protests across the country have done one reprehensible thing. This means the whole protest is illegitimate. Stop complaining about genocide and go back to work."
Do other people at the protest say "hey buddy, that's not what we're about"?
Or do they look the other way?
There have been movements in the past where a minority of the movement was antisemitic while the majority of the movement just looked the other way on the antisemitism from the others. It didn't go well for anyone.
The paradox of tolerance. If you tolerate the intolerant in your movement, you're part of an intolerant movement.
The two people waving the two flags? Yeah, seems like it. But you’re painting a whole march based on two people. Which seems super disingenuous and shitty. Which is exactly what this outlet is doing here.
But, there is a marked difference between the root causes of these two instances. Though they both stem from similar places. On the far right, you have a media machine that has, for 30+ years, used dogwhistles that basically Pavlov an entire group of people (roughly half the US voting population) into salivating for racism. When the mask came off, they over salivated and moved so far right that they took up the mantle of one of the worst movements in human history. It was a conditioning, built on impulses already present in the population that was susceptible to that conditioning, that needed—like an addiction—to be redoubled and made more acute as time wore on. And there is a serious problem with far right views being made mainstream. Even if they don’t fly a swastika on a flag, that fascist, bigoted mentality is pervasive on the right. It doesn’t have to wear a tiny mustache and an armband to be Nazi.
As for the people on the left, yes, there has also been a long-standing conditioning, but less acute and more just the temperature of the water we’ve all been swimming in. That being antisemitism. So much antisemitism is baked into our culture, a lot like general racism. And yes, some people on the left were pushing it, but not in the same way.
The more overt cause of this phenomenon is online culture and the need to be “more just” or “more [blank],” the blank being whatever issue is being discussed, people want to be more right about it. More extreme, more the movement being a part of these peoples identity. So you get one-upsmanship that shows itself by people embracing ideas that aren’t that great because they want to be more passionate about the issue at hand.
Not to mention, the nuance of hamas being sort of painted as freedom fighters against a genocidal force. Because, in some respect, they are that. They are what’s attempting to stand between the Israeli government and the people of Palestine. But, in reality, they are a far right fundamentalist organization that doesn’t have the Palestinian people’s best interest at heart. They’re largely unelected, undemocratic, bigots.
But there is no room for nuance on a flag. There’s no room for nuance on a protest sign. There is only room for the most basic of messages, and when you couple that with the aforementioned identity issues involved in politics these days, then you have a recipe for idiots misunderstanding what’s good with what’s more “unique” or more of an extreme statement.
So, in short, comparing the two is disingenuous at best.
Not to mention, the nuance of hamas being sort of painted as freedom fighters against a genocidal force. Because, in some respect, they are that. They are what’s attempting to stand between the Israeli government and the people of Palestine. But, in reality, they are a far right fundamentalist organization that doesn’t have the Palestinian people’s best interest at heart. They’re largely unelected, undemocratic, bigots.
So you just didn’t read what I said and decided that what I said wasn’t right.
Entirely reasonable and a worthy addition to the conversation, thank you.
If I went to a march and saw someone waving a flag of a group that committed genocide, I'd like to think I'd be brave enough to confront those people and tell them they're just making us all look bad and they aren't helping.
But realistically I'd probably just go home.
Either way I wouldn't associate myself with that kind of thing. The march would be a waste of time anyway, it's not going to influence anyone to join a cause that's for the genocide of the people they hate while claiming their people are victims of genocide. And if pretty much everyone went home when someone breaks out these kinds of flags, they'd soon get the point that they are hurting the movement even if no one confronted them about it.
At any rate everyone that went to this march accomplished exactly nothing because these people brought these flags. Probably worse than nothing... they likely lost support because of this.
If you care about Palestinians you should be willing to confront these people that are hurting your movement. If not, it's just a get-together to hang out with people that support the genocide of Jews.
Honestly? A lot of them probably don’t know what a Hamas or hezbollah flag looks like. So they wouldn’t recognize it enough to say, “hey! That’s not what we’re about!” Americans are pretty uneducated about most of that stuff. If this particular issue weren’t all over the news, social media, and on everyone’s mind, Americans wouldn’t know a goddamn thing about it. Because let’s face it, this situation has been going on for literally everyone at the march’s entire lives. And this is most likely the first time it’s been on their radar. That’s not a lot of time to learn about the entire history of two separate organizations and the complicated history of an entire geopolitical conflict. They’ve only had since oct. 7.
Add Lebanon into the mix? Forget about it. I’m surprised one person there was aware that hezbollah and hamas were allies.
All of this is to say, in some respects, you’re right. Tolerating intolerance should never happen. But to paint an entire group of people that want a people facing genocide to stop fuckin dying as intolerant because probably one person flying both flags (or two people, at most) that the rest of the well-meaning people probably didn’t recognize or didn’t know the history of just feels…wrong to me.
And the entire conversation started because it was likened to right wingers flying Nazi flags. No one is unaware of nazis. It’s not the same.
As for the person/people at this march that were either fine with it or supportive of it, I tried to explain that in my last comment.
It’s not great. But it’s not as cut and dry as writing off the whole goddamn movement to end the genocide. Because that’s what the media is doing here. Not really writing about the march, but writing off the whole march because of these two people. Side stepping the entire issue at hand because they can easily dismiss the entire thing by saying, “well, see? They’re bad people. Forget the message of peace.” It’s like a window getting smashed and the same media writing off the entire BLM march as a riot. Where did you stand then?
I’m genuinely curious though. How did you feel about this tactic being used by the media to discredit and write off the BLM demonstrations? Because this is the same thing being applied to a different situation: the worst or most misguided among an otherwise positive movement being shone a spotlight on in order to derail the conversation and wreck the momentum of the movement. That’s exactly what’s happening here, it’s what happened in 2020. So where do you stand on that
Prominent people in BLM made it clear that they didn't condone the violence being done by a small group of people.
The Palestinian protests can't denounce Hamas, a group that murdered over a thousand people in the most brutal ways imaginable. Which is far beyond some looting that occurred during the BLM protests. While prominent people in BLM denounced the looting, we hear basically nothing about people in Palestinian protests denouncing Hamas.
Do you really think that looting is the same thing as massacring villages? If so, you may have lost perspective.
You’re absolutely missing the point of my question. I know they’re not the same. I never said they were the same. What I said was the same was this tactic being used by the media. Highlight the worst of the bunch to discredit the movement. Because that’s what’s happening here. Did you side with the media then? Or did you decry this tactic then? Because you’re encouraging it now.
And as for your points here, you’re likening two disparate movements. An actual organization dealing with issues at home, and a loose group of different people from all walks of life coming together to say what we all see happening halfway across the world needs to stop. At my local demonstrations, there are always Hasidic Jewish people demonstrating alongside, speaking out against Israel’s actions. But you don’t say shit about that, you just pick out the worst example you can find and write off the entire demonstration. And, also, how do you know no one said ‘get the fuck out of here?’ You said they accomplished nothing because these two people were there. You really did write off the entire thing because of these two flags. Based on nothing but this article.
I think you're missing the point. Looting isn't comparable to massacring villages and even then, prominent voices in the BLM movement denounced the looting.
That isn't happening with Palestinian protests.
Based on nothing but this article.
I've seen many images of people cosplaying as Hamas at protests. It's fairly commonplace. This is not an isolated incident.
I dunno man....if you were wandering along marching in solidarity with Germans and the guy next to you was waving a nazi flag would you keep marching? I think the people there made a strong statement
Literally just yesterday, someone responded to a comment of mine about the peace deal “there is a genocide going on, they’re just freedom fighters” in reference to Hamas. LMAO
Oh its a common sentiment on this site - that wasn't the first, or second, or third, time someone has said something similar. There's a common thing here where people look at a losing side and think it's a cause worthy of their support
I would say that the common sentiment is that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations, but that doesn't justify killing Palestinians indiscriminately.
Still, asking someone for data for disagreeing with your own unsubstantiated comment seems rather disingenuous. Definitly something you want to avoid when posting with a mod tag.
the latter ones are usually eerily quite or will deflect when pressed about the first one.
As for what I said being unsubstantiated, prefacing it with "I would say" should have been a clue that it was not a comment I could back up since that's what prefacing a comment with those three words means.
I notice you didn't use those words.
So, I say again, where is the data on this being a usual case?
What data exactly are you looking for? You're expecting someone to do data analysis on the lemmy api for you? You serious?
What is and isn't a common sentiment on lemmy is inherently a subjective question that depends on your instance, personal settings and browsing behavior (I even hinted at that with the blocklist question). You don't need a "I would say" prefix to make that clear. It's common sense. Trying to spin it so that my statement was somehow supposed to a factual truth while yours wasn't is just petty.
I usually like your comments, quite said to see you stoop to such bad faith conversation methods.
They're not "just" freedom fighters: they ARE freedom fighters, but they are also conservative religious freedom fighters who utilize indiscriminate violence to advance their cause of by any means necessary.
They are not morally upright heroes. I can't support what they did. They are, however, also still freedom fighters. And it makes me very, very angry that their tactics have been successful after non-violence failed in 2018. It shouldn't have come to this.
As Kennedy astutely observed, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”.
I cannot endorse the violence Hamas employs, but I also understand in such a context why others do. This was an inevitable outcome of extreme political disenfranchisement, and that makes me equally furious at the joint responsibility I see for the atrocities that have resulted.
I didn't downvote, but I would argue that you can't call someone a freedom fighter if their ideology or political position fundamentally opposes freedom, just because they are fighting for the cause of one particular oppressed group. To put a comparison: some Ukrainians that fought against the Soviet Union during WWII could have seen themselves as freedom fighters who were fighting for the right of self-determination of their nation (as they were fighting a dictatorship, and that was probably their main intention), but you absolutely cannot call yourself a freedom fighter when you're helping the nazis occupy half of Europe.
Banderites were fascists and contributed to plenty of massacres but they also fought the Nazis because they didn't feel like bending the knee to Hitler, unlike, say, the Ustaša. In that sense they weren't collaborationists. It's why the whole national hero emotionality surrounding Bandera gets so frustratingly complicated.
Makhno is a much more suitable national hero but he was on nobody's mind as the very idea or existence of Anarchism was suppressed in the USSR while Bandera was a suitable boogeyman. "Enemy of my oppressor is my hero" kind of mechanism.
What do you think freedom fighters are? The fact that they are fighting for freedom does not inherently mean that they support Western values. The West does not have a monopoly on freedom.
Yeah, not really a group of "freedom fighters" you'd expect people in the West to rally behind... yet here we are. Holding terrorists' flags in NYC lol
Is the IDF also a terrorist organization? How about the US military? I struggle to see any justifiable reason why Hamas should wear that label while the other two should not.
IDF, yes. US military, no. One is deliberately targetting civilians, the other fails to give sufficient fuck about avoiding civilian casualties, those two things are not the same. The US is not saying "let's kill civilians so they become scared and do what we tell them", they're saying "huh why are they suddenly angry at us"? There's a naive innocence to it, you have to judge the US military using juvenile law.
I don't see a practical difference between targeting civilians directly, and a blatant disregard for civilian casualties. Like, if you drop a bomb on a wedding, because you're trying to kill one non-civilian target, but you obviously know that 100 civilians will die-- then how is that any different than suicide bombing the same wedding? Are the civilian victims less dead? Do their families feel differently?
Are the civilian victims less dead? Do their families feel differently?
No, and no. But intent still matters. Afghans learned that when you stand next to the wrong type of person, you could be hit, that if you stumbled across the wrong spot, like a hidden US observation post while herding your sheep, you could be hit.
There's at least a plausible connection to military necessity. The US approach helps them fuck all when it comes to winning hearts and minds, and you're still breeding resistance by eliminating that shepherd who stumbled across your position instead of calling a chopper to evacuate and relocate, but the people overall don't feel like they're being exterminated -- because they aren't. Because in the end, the US does have restraint, sometimes even to the degree that they're willing to lose a battle over it, that was the case in Afghanistan for Taliban etc. holed up in Mosques.
That is, there's insufficient regard for the civilian population on the US side, they're prioritising tactical military goals too much -- but not completely. The IDF doesn't even know what regard for civilians is. The US is court marshalling soldiers left and right when they misbehave, Israel is applying military law to 10yold Palestinians who lobbed a stone at a tank, dishing out decade-long sentences. US soldiers carry sweets to hand out to kids. Those two attitudes are not the same, and if you think they are, you're trivialising genocide.
I think you've absorbed too many American movies. The idea that "Afghans learned that" is so fucked up for at least two reasons. One, are you saying it was terrorism until the civvies learned to avoid US targets? Two, how the fuck are rural Afghanis supposed to know who's on the CIA kill list? The idea that they learned anything from being drone struck, besides what it feels like to have PTSD every time you go outside, is pretty silly.
The US military, much like most if not all other militaries will absolutely murder civilians if the objective requires it. You can't just take their word for what the objective is either. And is the US military really handing out court martials over civilian casualties? Given that the vast majority of US caused civilian deaths have resulted from ATG ordnance, we should expect a lot of court martials of pilots and drone operators, no? I'd love to see an example of that if you have one!
I think it's a matter of propaganda and aesthetics. If you kill civilians with an air force, that's "collateral damage". If you kill them with a truck bomb, that's "terrorism". After 9/11 there was at least a conversation about how squishy a word like 'terrorism' is, and how it was going to end up applied to anyone we needed it to.
Two, how the fuck are rural Afghanis supposed to know who’s on the CIA kill list?
The fuck does the CIA have to do with anything. And you don't need to be a genius to infer that hanging out with insurgent commanders is not a safe thing to do.
How stupid do you think Afghans are. Do you think that they are capable of language, of exchanging observations and experiences and drawing collective conclusions from them.
Motherfucker.
If you kill civilians with an air force, that’s “collateral damage”. If you kill them with a truck bomb, that’s “terrorism”.
Bullshit. In both cases, collateral damage is if alongside with the enemy commander or whatever, any legitimate target, you take out civilians. It's in the world "collateral". Look it up. If you're targeting civilians directly that's not collateral.
The CIA is often in charge of designating drone targets.
Not everyone who is targeted is an "insurgent commander"
Even "insurgent commanders" have families who might not have much choice about their proximity.
US military prisons like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo were famously filled with victims of grudges and bounties. Basically the US pays informants for targets, and informants just point at whoever they want. Military "intelligence" has a lot of holes in it to rely on it as an authority on who lives or dies-- and that's before we even get into "collateral".
Speaking of "collateral", yes that is a weasel word, much like "terrorist". Don't allow the perpetrator to define the terms for you. If there was one US general in the twin towers, would that have made the other 3k victims "collateral damage"?
Military “intelligence” has a lot of holes in it to rely on it as an authority on who lives or dies-- and that’s before we even get into “collateral”.
And that is why Germany's kill lists had juridical oversight, and collateral damage was not measured in civilians but "people who at least look like they're probably fighters". The Taliban also once sent the Bundeswehr an apology letter, saying "Some idiots of ours thought your convoy was a US one hope you're not mad".
You seem to be under the impression that I'm defending the US approach, I'm not. What I am doing is contrasting it to the IDF while you're engaged in trivialising IDF actions by insinuating the US is even half as bad. Even in Vietnam it wasn't as bad as the IDF is right now. US military intelligence blindly believing random accusations? The IDF doesn't even need those accusations to target you. Stochastic terrorism is part of their strategy.
Can you get it into your head that this isn't a simple, binary, "good" and "bad" thing, that there's degrees to everything?
I'm not saying they are all "just as bad" as one another. I'm trying to move us beyond the word "terrorism". IDF is worse than Hamas because of the context. IDF is an occupying force.
Hamas very much is an occupying force, too. They've been brutalising Gaza for quite a while and are very very happy with the result of October 7th. It got the exact response they wanted it to have, what's luckily missing is the reaction among Palestinians they wanted it to have, those accelerationist fucks. "Make Israel crack down harder to make the population madder".
Can you please stop that campism it's brainrot. Just because fascists happen to be on the underdog side doesn't make them in any way worthy of supporting, fascists love fighting other fascists as they can reinforce their respective holds over their own population.
Hamas and the variety of militias comprise the Palestinian armed resistance to Israeli occupation. They are made up mostly of orphans. They are not "the big bad", they are Palestinians. I'm not going to justify everything they do, but neither will I condemn them. What is Palestine's alternative?
Hamas and the variety of militias comprise the Palestinian armed resistance to Israeli occupation.
No. Generally speaking, that's the role of the PLO, a bunch of secular lefties and also Palestine's representative to the UN, which Hamas very much is not a part of. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, rabidly Islamist, very much more interested in martyrdom than liberation, more interested in making sure that male hair dressers don't serve female customers for whatever fucked-up reason, and also very much funded with the at least aid of Israel. Because the PLO has too much foreign goodwill.
Note that I'm saying here "Hamas" as in the organisation. Individual fighters might indeed have better motives, and individual paramedics definitely have better motives. But the middle to upper levels of the organisation, the strategists, the mullahs? Islamofascist, the lot of them. Not a single bit better than the Kahanites on the other side. They love each other, as the existence of the other means their war indeed can be eternal (see Umberto Eco). There can be no Israeli security without Palestinian freedom, and there also can't be Palestinian freedom without Israeli safety. The rest of Palestinians generally understand that, Hamas refuses to acknowledge it.
You know what you're doing right now? You're applauding the Mujahideen because they can be used to fight against the Soviets, blind to the Taliban you're creating. You're using the same fucked-up US doctrine that you slammed a few comments earlier. As said: Stop that "enemy of my enemy" campist bullshit.
Is the PLO offering any armed resistance to the genocide occurring right now? Does it offer any armed resistance to Israeli occupation generally? I cannot find any evidence that it is, but I would be happy to read anything that says otherwise.
So that's a no then? I thought you said that armed resistance to Israeli violence was the job of the PLO. Now you dodge and call it bloodlust to understand the impulse to resist occupation.
It's you who's equating having military capacity and using it. It's you who's equating resisting occupation with massacring far-left hippie Kibbutzim who were out there in Gaza, helping Palestinians left and right, and on the 7th you probably also made fun of them having a rave.
The average Palestinian is channelling Ghandi hardcore and all you care about is giving Kahanites pretext for genocide while freeing them of the inconvenient lefty voices within Israel. That is what your support for Hamas does, critical or otherwise, because that's what they're doing. There were plenty of other targets in reach, plenty of other civilian targets, Hamas chose the hippies. Why?
Ah, now I see who you are. You embody the liberal ideal that dying nonviolently is nobler than violent resistance. So useful to have "military capacity" and not use it while your people are slaughtered and yours lands stolen, eh?
Have you actually ever had a look at what Palestinians say. Their political discourse. Would be a much more useful use of your time than mindlessly parroting thought-terminating cliches such as "If you are against bombing hippie civilians you're pro genocide".
Do you seriously think you know better what to do than Palestinians themselves. Is that some white saviour shit or something.
No. Which doesn't have to do with anything. I also didn't ask you to move there to have an opinion, all I asked you to do was reading up a bit on Palestinian politics. Was that so unthinkable a suggestion that you need to get all defensive now and attempt to deflect.
How is it deflecting when you call me a "white savior" for having an outsider opinion about this genocide, if I hold your opinion to the same standard? Have you considered that the rank and file of Hamas live in Palestine? The ones that are fighting and dying? That they themselves are the children and orphans of Palestine?
I'm am sure that there is a variety of opinions among the Palestinian people, just as there are among the Israelis and Americans. I am aware of the limitations of my own perspective, but all I can do is apply my knowledge and principles to the situation as I see it. You're doing the same, and I don't really see any point in continuing this conversation. Take that as you will.
I am aware of the limitations of my own perspective,
Then be aware of the average attitude of Palestinians towards stoking the bear, will you, instead of coming here with an attitude of "The PLO is invalid because they're not fighting they're complicit in their own genocide", as you very much insinuated.
Because, you know, being aware of the limitations of your own perspective includes not running your mouth when you haven't done your research.
I think that any coverage should simply ask organizers to comment.
This is such a propaganda tactic: no one can stop someone from showing up with any flag they want. If the organizers embrace it? Then the criticism is fair game.
But if they say something like 'out of thousands of protesters who share our demand for peace, several brought inflammatory messages that don't represent us', then media has a duty to report that.
Oh, that's cool! I'm excited to check this out. I like their content. I don't love it enough to keep up with it (especially because they're a little long) but I'm interested to hear their take.
People on Lemmy seem to think Hamas just wants to bring unicorns and rainbows to the region. When in reality, they'd stone most of the users here for their views.
It's all weird. I don't know what kind of social engineering they did to make it OK to kill 1000 civilians, but their campaign was wildly successful.
I can't help but notice they didn't actually link to the survey, which doesn't let me know exactly what was asked, what the sample size was, where the samples were taken from, etc.
Regardless... this is not Palestine. It is Lemmy. The vast majority of people on Lemmy are very unlikely to be Palestinian considering their percentage of the global population.
You claimed, in a discussion about comments on Lemmy that usually, the people against this genocide support Hamas.
Which, again, I think is both offensive and wrong.
My apologies, I got my conversation with you mixed up with a conversation with someone else.
But I will say support within Palestine should not reflect support in New York City. The situations are entirely different. Jewish Voices for Peace is a huge element in protests there and I doubt they're big fans of Hamas.
First, for supporters of Palestinian liberation who are unclear: @chakan2 is correct. Palestinians largely endorse Hamas at this point, and believe that the attack on Oct. 7 was a justified response to their treatment by Israel. I understand that this is inconvenient for those of us who support Palestinian liberation but do not approve of Hamas' tactics, but it's a reality that we need to accept and move forward on. I don't believe that the endorsement of genocide by Palestinian civilians robs them of their right to life any more than I believe the widespread endorsement of genocide within Israeli public life after Oct. 7 robs them of their right to life and dignity as well.
As for your question, the short answer is that people aren't good at crafting a nuanced stance on multi-axis conflicts with no clear Galactic Empire style baddy and a plucky, ethical resistance. Ultimately, many people have concluded that the Israeli government has more blood on their hands and a greater responsibility for Hamas' use of violence than Hamas does. And so they're inclined to view pro-Israeli stances skeptically in a blanket way.
As for the article: I think this is always distraction. I want Hamas and Israel to accept the terms of the current ceasefire, and return the hostages, withdraw from Gaza, and begin a peace process. I want Biden to use leverage to make that happen, and to stop financing and arming the genocide, regardless of what flags people carry in the streets.
If you live in NY, well then this matters. Figure out your communities. But for the rest of this, it's just a smear job on Palestinian rights activism.
When it comes to those numbers -- on both sides, btw -- it's important to note that neither side is consuming media that is in any shape or form neutral. Journalists on both sides rely on people tuning in so even the most well-intentioned are forced to be, at the very least, quite selective in their reporting. The whole situation is too awash with propaganda for things to play out differently, putting an edge to it if you see that the other side is accusing your side of sacrificing children to Satan and eating them, you're not very likely to believe their accusations of your fighters indiscriminately killing civilians.
How many Israelis support idf or Israel? Hamas and Hezbollah flags are the equivalent to Israeli flags since they are terrorists organizations and governments. Usa supports only one of the terrorists though...I would argue Hamas are rebel fighters. Rebels use terrorism against regimes and occupying forces that kill locals in this case genocide and colonize Palestinians.
Do freedom fighters also intentionally hold up in schools, hospitals, and crowded places so they can use civilians as human shields? Do freedom fighters steal free aid meant for the people and force them to buy it back from them or starve? Do freedom fighters typically have their leader living the high life in another country while the people they're supposedly fighting for suffer?
This is the standard that was applied when a few nazi flags showed up at convoy rallies. You either need to reclaim the cause for your protest, or admit that it actually stands for something else and then ask yourself if you want to be part of that.
No, but I'm also not sure where you are going with that question. I suppose hezbollah flags directly have something to do with the Palestine protests, whereas nazi flags didn't really have anything to do with the convoy, so maybe it's more understandable to have hezbollah/hamas flags there. But they are still terrorists, right? Or are we OK with them now? I'm just not sure what you mean.
See, the difference is that the people at the convoy were given a chance to disavow the Nazis as the media talks to the organizers. The people at these protests are called Hamas sympathizers and the organizers are not even contacted by the media.
But the organizers at these anti-genocide protests seem never to be interviewed by the media. Do you think it's because they're hiding?
Yeah maybe they were contacted, I don't recall. And yes the organizers should be available for interviews, and should also be given a chance to clarify what they stand for, what their message is and who the big backers are. That way you can get an idea of what they ACTUALLY stand for and not just what the leader says.
Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
The first part that needs to be dealt with is "unlawful." Who's laws? The issue is states get to arbitrarily define terrorism. If a state does terrorism, they get to say it's something else.
Second: "violence and intimidation... in the pursuit of political aims." OK, so all militaries do this part. That's the point of a military. If this part is wrong then all states are wrong.
OK, so essentially the issue is defining "terrorism" as a bad thing. It isn't necessarily. It's using the means of the state against a state. That is all. It can be bad, but so can the actions of a state. It can also be good. If only states are allowed to use violence then they will use violence to suppress voices they disagree with, and there's nothing that can be done about it.
We've got to stop using the term terrorism. It's a term of the media. It isn't useful in a real discussion. It is a term used to drive hatred and fear even if the ones using it are the ones on the receiving end of most of the violence. The media will never use the word to refer to state actions that they agree with. Stop using their language.
I guess it comes down to whether the laws are just or unjust, if the state that makes the laws is good or bad. When you have a clash of cultures that are not compatible with each other, or different states with incompatible ideas, there will be a winner and a loser, where the winner makes the laws and therefore determines what constitutes "terrorism". But just because one culture won, doesn't mean that it is just or good. It could be the good guys in charge, or just as easily the bad guys. It depends not so much on good or bad, but on military power. So how do you know when it's the good guys in charge? If the "bad guys" of today, the "terrorists", were in charge instead and you and I were on the other end of the power dynamic, would it be a better world? Would we be resorting to violence against citizens and against the state in order to further our political cause? Hard to say. Most of us would probably assimilate into their culture, but certainly some of us would be the new resistance, the new terrorists, killing innocents because we believed that strongly in our cause.
But this is all based on the assumption that laws and power dynamics will always exist, that they are in fact necessary. Someone will always be in charge, and others will wish they were, and will be willing to resort to violence to get the power or to break the laws. Do you envision a world where power dynamics and laws don't exist? I can't see it.
Some of the people in that movement thought so. From things they read on the internet, they were led to believe that covid was part of a plan to kill millions of people.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet, kids. It may lead you to get so emotional over genocide claims that you end up being associated with some actual genocidal groups.
Thinking there is a genocide because of stupidity is not the same as an actual genocide. Which is what is going on.
People claim abortion is genocide too. It is also not genocide. Just because you claim something is genocide, it doesn't mean it is. Experts tend to have to weigh in. And they have in the case of Gaza and have determined it is a genocide.
So maybe don't conflate the two, unless you are one of those kooks who believe COVID was a genocide, something not a single expert believes.
So... was COVID a genocide? Do you think those stupid unJesusy scientifimagicians are wrong and the Queen of Canada is right or is this a totally different situation?
Well well ... look at Netanyahu, pretending he gives a shit what happens to Palestinian children now, after murdering thousands of them in the last 5 months.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. <-You Are Here
I'm absolutely for human rights. The human right, for example, to not be taken hostage and raped to death. But I guess you believe that human rights only exist for non-Israelis?
What I don't understand is why you think that we could undo a terrible thing which happened to one innocent group of people by doing terrible things to another group of innocent people. This only perpetuates the cycle of violence and the only winners are those who build weapons.
It also completely ignores ~80+ years of violent oppression and occupation perpetrated against the Palestinian people... But yeah let's just pretend that they're all just savage monsters and their attack last fall was completely unprovoked.
today.lorientlejour.com
Hot