11 ms·

>What I don’t understand, how is it considered resistance Imagine if Russia manages to annex most of Ukraine, and converts the rest of Ukraine into an open-air

>What I don’t understand, how is it considered resistance Imagine if Russia manages to annex most of Ukraine, and converts the rest of Ukraine into an open-air prison. If twenty years later the people in that part of Ukraine manage to gather weapons and launch a counter-attack on Russia, wouldn't that count as resistance?

bawolff 3y ago
You have to imagine very hard to consider gaza to have been annexed. You could make an argument for "occupied" (although that in itself is debatable post 2005), but "annexed" does not make sense. For those not familiar with background context of why i say post-2005, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_G...
- logicchains 3y ago
  >You have to imagine very hard to consider gaza to have been annexed Israel didn't annex Gaza, it (via the UK) annexed Palestine upon its creation, with Gaza and the West Bank being the land that remains un-annexed.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    That makes even less sense. To annex something means to add it to an existing state. Israel by definition can't annex something before it exists. The UK controlled the area at the time, but they basically gave up and left. I don't understand how you could say they were annexing it at this point in time either. Israel is closer to being a succesor state to mandatory palestine than anything else. Generally international law recognizes the right for ethnic groups to self-determination (Palestinians often rightly complain that they effectively have not had this in the modern period, but the right applies to both sides). It is not considered annexation for a group from one state to split off and form a new state via self-determination. To give a comparison, i think your argument would be the equivalent of saying ukraine annexed russia because they unilaterally left soviet union.
    - lmm 3y ago
      > Israel by definition can't annex something before it exists. That seems like a purely semantic argument. If a bunch of people from a particular political movement show up somewhere and seize a bunch of land and declare it's part of their nation, whether that nation is completely new or existing doesn't change the morality of that anywhere. E.g. the formation of South Ossetia on Georgian territory is widely recognised as either annexation or something morally equivalent to it. > Generally international law recognizes the right for ethnic groups to self-determination (Palestinians often rightly complain that they effectively have not had this in the modern period, but the right applies to both sides). It is not considered annexation for a group from one state to split off and form a new state via self-determination. That's arguably true for people who declare independence in the territory they're already living in. Not for people who settle on someone else's territory and then claim it as theirs.
      - bawolff 3y ago
        > E.g. the formation of South Ossetia on Georgian territory is widely recognised as either annexation or something morally equivalent to it. I'm under the impression it is seen as occupation (not annexation) by russia with a thin vaneer over top. You still have a separate state being involved, with russia arguably continuing to be in control. > That's arguably true for people who declare independence in the territory they're already living in. Not for people who settle on someone else's territory and then claim it as theirs. Well there was significant migration to the area in the lead up, its not like the jews just showed up in 1948 and declared independence. From what i understand there was a continous jewish presence in the region throughout history, albeit at various point as a much smaller minority.
        lmm 3y ago
        > its not like the jews just showed up in 1948 and declared independence AIUI it pretty much was; yes the zionist movement existed to a certain extent before WW2, but the overwhelming majority of jewish people living on the territory of Palestine in 1948 had moved there at most a few years before (with a huge increase in those who felt the desire or need to move there as persecution escalated in Europe in the 1930s and ultimately lead to the holocaust).
mensetmanusman 3y ago
This analogy fails because it would require Poland to also close their border. Gaza is essentially half controlled by Egypt.
dash2 3y ago
I cannot believe I have to say this. No, beheading children and torturing them in front of their parents is not a "counter-attack", nor is it "resistance". This statement is actively evil.
- logicchains 3y ago
  >No, beheading children and torturing them in front of their parents There's absolutely no evidence this happened.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > There's absolutely no evidence this happened. There's evidence that Hamas beheaded children I haven't seen any evidence they tortured them infant of their parents.
- coolThingsFirst 3y ago
  Right and Israel bombing civilian dense Gaza is passively evil? Bombs are brutal.
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  One does not preclude the other. This is not a Hollywood movie, the Resistance fighting against the Empire are more likely to commit atrocities, not less (because they are in a position of weakness). I am reminded of the colonization of the USA : some of the Native American tribes were infamous for their atrocities (if I am not mistaken, ramped up against the colonists compared to what they usually did in war ?). Of course in the long term the Resistance committing atrocities only hurts their own cause : it gives a justification for the Empire to commit genocide. We will see whether Israel will take the opportunity, or will only leave genocide as a publicly made promise - note also that under the current situation, genocide is going to happen by sheer neglect if a significant fraction of the needed humanitarian aid is not let in.
xdennis 3y ago
Your analogy is wrong because Jews were there before Arabs. It's like saying that Cherokee would be colonizers if they moved to North Carolina, which is their original homeland before they were forced to move to Oklahoma (the Trail of Tears).
- zen_1 3y ago
  That hasn't been true since Hadrian
- cheeseomlit 3y ago
  Weren't the Philistines in the old testament the ancestors of the Palestinians? Meaning they were there first presumably, since the Israelites had to fight them to take the region in the first place
  - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
    Of course not. Their ancestors are Egyptians and Algerians who came to work for the British between 1919-1947.
  - dgfitz 3y ago
    My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that this goes all the way back to Jacob and Esau, if one considers the Bible as purely a historical reference and not a religious text.
  - xdennis 3y ago
    The Philistines settled in a small part of modern Israel at around 1175 BC, and disappeared (were assimilated) by the 5th century BC. Roman Judea was renamed to Palestine in 135 AD (after the Philistines) by the Romans after numerous revolts by the Jews attempting to overthrow their colonizers. It was freed from Roman colonialism in 634 AD... by being colonized by Arabs. Many empires colonized it afterwards, the last being the British. Most of today's Israelis are from Muslim countries, some are from Europe, and the rest never left. But many of Arabs of the land (which have adopted the name Palestinians after the province, not the people) are from neighboring countries.
barsonme 3y ago
It is never acceptable, under any circumstances, to wholesale slaughter, rape, torture, and desecrate innocent civilians. Pick a fight with the government, not senior citizens at a bus stop. What Hamas did on 7 October wasn’t a “counter-attack,” it was literal genocide.

bawolff 3y ago

You have to imagine very hard to consider gaza to have been annexed. You could make an argument for "occupied" (although that in itself is debatable post 2005), but "annexed" does not make sense. For those not familiar with background context of why i say post-2005, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_G...

logicchains 3y ago
>You have to imagine very hard to consider gaza to have been annexed Israel didn't annex Gaza, it (via the UK) annexed Palestine upon its creation, with Gaza and the West Bank being the land that remains un-annexed.
- bawolff 3y ago
  That makes even less sense. To annex something means to add it to an existing state. Israel by definition can't annex something before it exists. The UK controlled the area at the time, but they basically gave up and left. I don't understand how you could say they were annexing it at this point in time either. Israel is closer to being a succesor state to mandatory palestine than anything else. Generally international law recognizes the right for ethnic groups to self-determination (Palestinians often rightly complain that they effectively have not had this in the modern period, but the right applies to both sides). It is not considered annexation for a group from one state to split off and form a new state via self-determination. To give a comparison, i think your argument would be the equivalent of saying ukraine annexed russia because they unilaterally left soviet union.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > Israel by definition can't annex something before it exists. That seems like a purely semantic argument. If a bunch of people from a particular political movement show up somewhere and seize a bunch of land and declare it's part of their nation, whether that nation is completely new or existing doesn't change the morality of that anywhere. E.g. the formation of South Ossetia on Georgian territory is widely recognised as either annexation or something morally equivalent to it. > Generally international law recognizes the right for ethnic groups to self-determination (Palestinians often rightly complain that they effectively have not had this in the modern period, but the right applies to both sides). It is not considered annexation for a group from one state to split off and form a new state via self-determination. That's arguably true for people who declare independence in the territory they're already living in. Not for people who settle on someone else's territory and then claim it as theirs.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      > E.g. the formation of South Ossetia on Georgian territory is widely recognised as either annexation or something morally equivalent to it. I'm under the impression it is seen as occupation (not annexation) by russia with a thin vaneer over top. You still have a separate state being involved, with russia arguably continuing to be in control. > That's arguably true for people who declare independence in the territory they're already living in. Not for people who settle on someone else's territory and then claim it as theirs. Well there was significant migration to the area in the lead up, its not like the jews just showed up in 1948 and declared independence. From what i understand there was a continous jewish presence in the region throughout history, albeit at various point as a much smaller minority.
      - lmm 3y ago
        > its not like the jews just showed up in 1948 and declared independence AIUI it pretty much was; yes the zionist movement existed to a certain extent before WW2, but the overwhelming majority of jewish people living on the territory of Palestine in 1948 had moved there at most a few years before (with a huge increase in those who felt the desire or need to move there as persecution escalated in Europe in the 1930s and ultimately lead to the holocaust).

mensetmanusman 3y ago

This analogy fails because it would require Poland to also close their border. Gaza is essentially half controlled by Egypt.

dash2 3y ago

I cannot believe I have to say this. No, beheading children and torturing them in front of their parents is not a "counter-attack", nor is it "resistance". This statement is actively evil.

logicchains 3y ago
>No, beheading children and torturing them in front of their parents There's absolutely no evidence this happened.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > There's absolutely no evidence this happened. There's evidence that Hamas beheaded children I haven't seen any evidence they tortured them infant of their parents.
coolThingsFirst 3y ago
Right and Israel bombing civilian dense Gaza is passively evil? Bombs are brutal.
BlueTemplar 3y ago
One does not preclude the other. This is not a Hollywood movie, the Resistance fighting against the Empire are more likely to commit atrocities, not less (because they are in a position of weakness). I am reminded of the colonization of the USA : some of the Native American tribes were infamous for their atrocities (if I am not mistaken, ramped up against the colonists compared to what they usually did in war ?). Of course in the long term the Resistance committing atrocities only hurts their own cause : it gives a justification for the Empire to commit genocide. We will see whether Israel will take the opportunity, or will only leave genocide as a publicly made promise - note also that under the current situation, genocide is going to happen by sheer neglect if a significant fraction of the needed humanitarian aid is not let in.

xdennis 3y ago

Your analogy is wrong because Jews were there before Arabs. It's like saying that Cherokee would be colonizers if they moved to North Carolina, which is their original homeland before they were forced to move to Oklahoma (the Trail of Tears).

zen_1 3y ago
That hasn't been true since Hadrian
cheeseomlit 3y ago
Weren't the Philistines in the old testament the ancestors of the Palestinians? Meaning they were there first presumably, since the Israelites had to fight them to take the region in the first place
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
  Of course not. Their ancestors are Egyptians and Algerians who came to work for the British between 1919-1947.
- dgfitz 3y ago
  My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that this goes all the way back to Jacob and Esau, if one considers the Bible as purely a historical reference and not a religious text.
- xdennis 3y ago
  The Philistines settled in a small part of modern Israel at around 1175 BC, and disappeared (were assimilated) by the 5th century BC. Roman Judea was renamed to Palestine in 135 AD (after the Philistines) by the Romans after numerous revolts by the Jews attempting to overthrow their colonizers. It was freed from Roman colonialism in 634 AD... by being colonized by Arabs. Many empires colonized it afterwards, the last being the British. Most of today's Israelis are from Muslim countries, some are from Europe, and the rest never left. But many of Arabs of the land (which have adopted the name Palestinians after the province, not the people) are from neighboring countries.

barsonme 3y ago

It is never acceptable, under any circumstances, to wholesale slaughter, rape, torture, and desecrate innocent civilians. Pick a fight with the government, not senior citizens at a bus stop. What Hamas did on 7 October wasn’t a “counter-attack,” it was literal genocide.