12 ms·

Yes that's exactly what happened in the west bank. Once they stopped fighting, they were left alone! Oh wait no, it just led to massive colonial projects backed

Yes that's exactly what happened in the west bank. Once they stopped fighting, they were left alone! Oh wait no, it just led to massive colonial projects backed by the Israeli government. Oopsie!

scotty79 3y ago
If you had to choose, would you prefer to live now in Gaza or the West Bank? Which community made the better choice then?
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  That's an odd question. Obviously I'd rather live in the more peaceful side, but that has nothing to do with anything. If you had to chose between living in nazi occupied Paris and Stalingrad, which one would you chose? Does that mean that the Russians made a bad choice resisting the invaders? For some people, living comfortably isn't the most important thing they can have. Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree? If Israel wants peace, it shouldn't push for massive colonization efforts and shouldn't use its army to back any colonist living in the Westbank when an armed group finally decides to lay down arms. If psychopathy is the only way for a group to prevent its own annihilation (whether it happens now or slowly), you will almost always get psychopathic behavior. That's true for everyone, hell in fact even Israel has that embedded in it's very own defense strategy with the Samson option. Which makes the Israeli side even less credible
  - scotty79 3y ago
    > Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree? Actually I don't. It depends on the circumstances and the price. Sometimes getting colonized is the best outcome possible. Especially if the alternative is getting wiped out by way stronger opponent. US colonized large part of Mexico. Are people there better or worse because of that?
    - mardifoufs 3y ago
      Mhmmm, I get what you are saying. And I even agree on a personal level. But I still think that there is a double standard as to who seems to be allowed to use violence in those cases. It's fine to even disagree with Palestinians, and I also understand that Israel has a right to exist at this point. But the issue is when the west supports fully and unconditionally one side but condemns another for doing the same. It generates alienation and resentment especially when we try to rationalize that support and morally justify it, when in reality we just don't care when our side does it. Which again, I understand, but the sugar coating is what triggers me.
      - scotty79 3y ago
        I think Isreal wasn't given free pass ever. And now, only after it suffered worse atrocity ever, its free pass only lasted few weeks for most people. There's a huge disproportion of strength there and it's natural to root for a little guy. But when you look closer at the conflict and motivations of its participants it's easier. Because one side wants to have peace for itself to thrive and the other wants them dead and gone and it's not shy about advertising that intention at any opportunity. Palestinians have a right to exist and to defend themselves but what they were doing with crude rockets and attacks wasn't a defence. It was an attempt at genocide. And people only fail to recognize it at such because it was so inept due to Israel defensive power.
        mardifoufs 3y ago
        Is that why it immediately started colonizing it's neighbor when it could get away with it (as in, when it didn't cost too much to keep the colonies secure)? Also, what other country in the world is allowed to literally push settlements outside of its territory, and then slowly conquer said settlements? Actually,which other country it allowed to colonize anything without international condemnation?
        scotty79 3y ago
        In another country? Probably there's none. In their own country, on territories claimed by some minority as their own? I bet there's a few at least. Something in Azerbaijan for sure.

Yes that's exactly what happened in the west bank. Once they stopped fighting, they were left alone! Oh wait no, it just led to massive colonial projects backed by the Israeli government. Oopsie!

scotty79 3y ago

If you had to choose, would you prefer to live now in Gaza or the West Bank? Which community made the better choice then?

mardifoufs 3y ago
That's an odd question. Obviously I'd rather live in the more peaceful side, but that has nothing to do with anything. If you had to chose between living in nazi occupied Paris and Stalingrad, which one would you chose? Does that mean that the Russians made a bad choice resisting the invaders? For some people, living comfortably isn't the most important thing they can have. Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree? If Israel wants peace, it shouldn't push for massive colonization efforts and shouldn't use its army to back any colonist living in the Westbank when an armed group finally decides to lay down arms. If psychopathy is the only way for a group to prevent its own annihilation (whether it happens now or slowly), you will almost always get psychopathic behavior. That's true for everyone, hell in fact even Israel has that embedded in it's very own defense strategy with the Samson option. Which makes the Israeli side even less credible
- scotty79 3y ago
  > Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree? Actually I don't. It depends on the circumstances and the price. Sometimes getting colonized is the best outcome possible. Especially if the alternative is getting wiped out by way stronger opponent. US colonized large part of Mexico. Are people there better or worse because of that?
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    Mhmmm, I get what you are saying. And I even agree on a personal level. But I still think that there is a double standard as to who seems to be allowed to use violence in those cases. It's fine to even disagree with Palestinians, and I also understand that Israel has a right to exist at this point. But the issue is when the west supports fully and unconditionally one side but condemns another for doing the same. It generates alienation and resentment especially when we try to rationalize that support and morally justify it, when in reality we just don't care when our side does it. Which again, I understand, but the sugar coating is what triggers me.
    - scotty79 3y ago
      I think Isreal wasn't given free pass ever. And now, only after it suffered worse atrocity ever, its free pass only lasted few weeks for most people. There's a huge disproportion of strength there and it's natural to root for a little guy. But when you look closer at the conflict and motivations of its participants it's easier. Because one side wants to have peace for itself to thrive and the other wants them dead and gone and it's not shy about advertising that intention at any opportunity. Palestinians have a right to exist and to defend themselves but what they were doing with crude rockets and attacks wasn't a defence. It was an attempt at genocide. And people only fail to recognize it at such because it was so inept due to Israel defensive power.
      - mardifoufs 3y ago
        Is that why it immediately started colonizing it's neighbor when it could get away with it (as in, when it didn't cost too much to keep the colonies secure)? Also, what other country in the world is allowed to literally push settlements outside of its territory, and then slowly conquer said settlements? Actually,which other country it allowed to colonize anything without international condemnation?
        scotty79 3y ago
        In another country? Probably there's none. In their own country, on territories claimed by some minority as their own? I bet there's a few at least. Something in Azerbaijan for sure.