6 ms·

Every pro Palestinian protestor has experienced some form of awareness suppression and content removal. They have known this was a thing long before anyone else

Every pro Palestinian protestor has experienced some form of awareness suppression and content removal. They have known this was a thing long before anyone else did. Same thing happened during 9/11. Muslims saw suppression, bullying by the police and no one covered it. Then the tables turned on maga republicans after j6.

dijit 2y ago
I’m too stupid to navigate this topic in anything other than a crude and adolescent way, however I think it could be tricky for pro-palestinians because they can fall easily into the trap of using party slogans used by proscribed organisations. My understanding of Hamas is that they are not considered a legitimate army, but if they were they would be guilty of an insurmountable number of war crimes (not unlike the IDF as many would say). Showing support for such things is beyond reasonable accepted discourse in my home country.
- throw310822 2y ago
  > it could be tricky for pro-palestinians because they can fall easily into the trap of using party slogans used by proscribed organisations Any excuse is good when you have power and want to justify repression. For example they tried to claim that the slogan "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" is genocidal. Quite a jump. (Meanwhile, the Likud's platform says "from the river to the sea there will be only Israel" but that's fine). > if they were they would be guilty of an insurmountable number of war crimes They killed much less civilians than the IDF did, and they are not invaders nor illegal occupiers of someone else's country. What is acceptable or unacceptable is decided by those who are in power, and they are currently protecting a country whose prime minister in charge is wanted for crimes against humanity.
  - jl6 2y ago
    > For example they tried to claim that the slogan "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" is genocidal. It’s actually just German for “The Bart, The”.
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    > they tried to claim that the slogan "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" is genocidal. There is no other meaning. The slogan is a call to kill every single Israeli. That is literally what it means. Where will the israelis be when palestine is free from the river to the see? The hamas charter still to this day calls to kill every single israeli. This is the problem. You yourself dont even know what it is you are calling for, then you get mad when others point out that you are using slogans that call for a genocide. For the record I think Likud is awful as well, but at least in the US there are no serious israel supporters using the israeli version of the slogan. As far as counting deaths that doesnt work because Hamas is getting their own civilians killed on purpose while israel is doing the opposite. If hamas had a nuke it would wipe israel off the map, israel does have nukes and the palestinians are more numerous than ever. The palestinaians are deeply oppressed, but theyre also raging assholes who would love nothing more than to not just oppress but kill every isreali. Being oppressed doesnt make them right.
    - muddi900 2y ago
      It is interesting that you disregard the sentence following it. And Hamas 2017 charter does not hace that language
      - HDThoreaun 2y ago
        > Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Straight from the 2017 version, calling for the genocide of israelis. I think the israeli version of the slogan is genocidal too, as I said originally.
        muddi900 2y ago
        Reading is hard I guess...
    - throw310822 2y ago
      > The slogan is a call to kill every single Israeli. ... Where will the israelis be when palestine is free from the river to the see? Oh well, this is just unbelievable. So by your logic the Likud platform, where it claims Israeli sovereignty over the whole Palestine ("from the Jordan to the sea") is a call to kill every single Palestinian? So Israel is ruled since thirty years by a genocidal party? And have you denounced this left and right? > For the record I think Likud is awful as well, but at least in the US there are no serious israel supporters using the israeli version of the slogan. I register that when you talk about a protest slogan calling for "freedom" you call it "genocidal"; when talking about the governing party in Israel, whose leader is under arrest order for crimes against humanity, it's just "awful". So is Likud, Israel's ruling party, genocidal or not? Does that make Israel a genocidal state or not? Does it make the US politicians that support the current Israeli government genocidal or not? By your logic the proposal to ethnically cleanse the Gaza strip, made by Trump and endorsed by Netanyahu (or more probably the other way around), is also a call to kill every single Palestinian in it? And this is not a slogan, it is literally a proposal by the president of the most powerful country on earth. Did you denounce it? But you logic is flawed. What if Israel is dissolved and becomes a different state and Jews and Arabs are both unharmed and free to live in it? Wouldn't then Palestine be free, without the need to kill anyone? > The hamas charter still to this day calls to kill every single israeli This is a mystification. Even the original Hamas charter (the one that was replaced by a much tamer one) explicitly said that under the protection of Islam, Muslims, Christians and Jews would be free to leave in peace with each other.
- cantrecallmypwd 2y ago
  Hamas isn't an army, it's the political party voted into office to administer Gaza. The problem is a subset of it, the Al-Qassam Brigades, that conduct asymmetric warfare. If that were shutdown and violence were disavowed, that would give them political respect and would cease giving Palestinians a bad name that holds them back from the atrocities committed against them from being recognized.
  - throw310822 2y ago
    > that would give them political respect, cease giving Palestinians a bad name that holds them back from the atrocities committed against them from being recognized Yes the respect Fatah has. Look at the strong words of condemnation from world leaders for the daily pogroms Palestinians are subjected to in the West Bank. Look at the apartheid being enforced there, look at the demolished houses and villages, at the hundreds of illegal settlements, at the ethnic cleansing going on by the day. Hamas is an excuse as good as any. In fact, given its overwhelming power and impunity, Israel makes and chooses its counterparts. If a Palestinian leader looks too good, they can kill him. If the protests are too peaceful, they can shoot a few people until they turn a bit violent. Hamas was promoted to weaken Fatah. And so on. Hamas has proposed multiple times long term ceasefires (10 years) and has recognised the 1967 borders. All these proposals went completely ignored and mostly unmentioned in the Western media because that's not useful to Israel.
    - nashashmi 2y ago
      The reason is as you say: If someone gets too popular or a leadership looks too promising, Israel shoots them or compromises them. Fatah is seen as corrupt and liberal group too conflicted to create any meaningful movements for Palestinians. Hamas is seen as more sincere movement and has stronger support. They are primarily a social movement with a military wing. And so they are a stronger threat to Israel than Fatah could be. Fatah for its part is compromisable and pliable where as Hamas is a conservative strict disciplined movement with no hope for Israel to corrupt them.
    - wordofx 2y ago
      [flagged]
- mmooss 2y ago
  > they can fall easily into the trap of using party slogans used by proscribed organisations. It's taking it way to far to suppress speech - political speech, the most important speech - for slipping in the 'wrong' slogans. > My understanding of Hamas is that they are not considered a legitimate army, but if they were they would be guilty of an insurmountable number of war crimes While Hamas commits many horrors and is oppressive and awful, I don't think the ligitimate army argument holds water: If Hamas acted like a legitimate army under the laws of war, they'd be massacred in an instant. It would require them to dress in uniforms so they can be identified, and only fight against the enemy's military. Hamas has some rifles and RPGs and a few rockets. Their enemy has tanks, fighter planes, etc etc etc. If Hamas wanted to be a legitimate army, their only option would be to immediately disband. The laws of war seem written by large powers to protect their interests. There are legitimate 'freedom-fighting' insurgents out there who also are limited in their ability to be a 'legitimate army'. > (not unlike the IDF as many would say). Showing support for such things is beyond reasonable accepted discourse in my home country. So can people show support for either Israel (it's not the IDF, it's a political entity - Israel) or Hamas (also a political entity)? How do they talk about the war?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

dijit 2y ago

I’m too stupid to navigate this topic in anything other than a crude and adolescent way, however I think it could be tricky for pro-palestinians because they can fall easily into the trap of using party slogans used by proscribed organisations. My understanding of Hamas is that they are not considered a legitimate army, but if they were they would be guilty of an insurmountable number of war crimes (not unlike the IDF as many would say). Showing support for such things is beyond reasonable accepted discourse in my home country.

throw310822 2y ago
> it could be tricky for pro-palestinians because they can fall easily into the trap of using party slogans used by proscribed organisations Any excuse is good when you have power and want to justify repression. For example they tried to claim that the slogan "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" is genocidal. Quite a jump. (Meanwhile, the Likud's platform says "from the river to the sea there will be only Israel" but that's fine). > if they were they would be guilty of an insurmountable number of war crimes They killed much less civilians than the IDF did, and they are not invaders nor illegal occupiers of someone else's country. What is acceptable or unacceptable is decided by those who are in power, and they are currently protecting a country whose prime minister in charge is wanted for crimes against humanity.
- jl6 2y ago
  > For example they tried to claim that the slogan "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" is genocidal. It’s actually just German for “The Bart, The”.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  > they tried to claim that the slogan "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" is genocidal. There is no other meaning. The slogan is a call to kill every single Israeli. That is literally what it means. Where will the israelis be when palestine is free from the river to the see? The hamas charter still to this day calls to kill every single israeli. This is the problem. You yourself dont even know what it is you are calling for, then you get mad when others point out that you are using slogans that call for a genocide. For the record I think Likud is awful as well, but at least in the US there are no serious israel supporters using the israeli version of the slogan. As far as counting deaths that doesnt work because Hamas is getting their own civilians killed on purpose while israel is doing the opposite. If hamas had a nuke it would wipe israel off the map, israel does have nukes and the palestinians are more numerous than ever. The palestinaians are deeply oppressed, but theyre also raging assholes who would love nothing more than to not just oppress but kill every isreali. Being oppressed doesnt make them right.
  - muddi900 2y ago
    It is interesting that you disregard the sentence following it. And Hamas 2017 charter does not hace that language
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      > Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Straight from the 2017 version, calling for the genocide of israelis. I think the israeli version of the slogan is genocidal too, as I said originally.
      - muddi900 2y ago
        Reading is hard I guess...
  - throw310822 2y ago
    > The slogan is a call to kill every single Israeli. ... Where will the israelis be when palestine is free from the river to the see? Oh well, this is just unbelievable. So by your logic the Likud platform, where it claims Israeli sovereignty over the whole Palestine ("from the Jordan to the sea") is a call to kill every single Palestinian? So Israel is ruled since thirty years by a genocidal party? And have you denounced this left and right? > For the record I think Likud is awful as well, but at least in the US there are no serious israel supporters using the israeli version of the slogan. I register that when you talk about a protest slogan calling for "freedom" you call it "genocidal"; when talking about the governing party in Israel, whose leader is under arrest order for crimes against humanity, it's just "awful". So is Likud, Israel's ruling party, genocidal or not? Does that make Israel a genocidal state or not? Does it make the US politicians that support the current Israeli government genocidal or not? By your logic the proposal to ethnically cleanse the Gaza strip, made by Trump and endorsed by Netanyahu (or more probably the other way around), is also a call to kill every single Palestinian in it? And this is not a slogan, it is literally a proposal by the president of the most powerful country on earth. Did you denounce it? But you logic is flawed. What if Israel is dissolved and becomes a different state and Jews and Arabs are both unharmed and free to live in it? Wouldn't then Palestine be free, without the need to kill anyone? > The hamas charter still to this day calls to kill every single israeli This is a mystification. Even the original Hamas charter (the one that was replaced by a much tamer one) explicitly said that under the protection of Islam, Muslims, Christians and Jews would be free to leave in peace with each other.
cantrecallmypwd 2y ago
Hamas isn't an army, it's the political party voted into office to administer Gaza. The problem is a subset of it, the Al-Qassam Brigades, that conduct asymmetric warfare. If that were shutdown and violence were disavowed, that would give them political respect and would cease giving Palestinians a bad name that holds them back from the atrocities committed against them from being recognized.
- throw310822 2y ago
  > that would give them political respect, cease giving Palestinians a bad name that holds them back from the atrocities committed against them from being recognized Yes the respect Fatah has. Look at the strong words of condemnation from world leaders for the daily pogroms Palestinians are subjected to in the West Bank. Look at the apartheid being enforced there, look at the demolished houses and villages, at the hundreds of illegal settlements, at the ethnic cleansing going on by the day. Hamas is an excuse as good as any. In fact, given its overwhelming power and impunity, Israel makes and chooses its counterparts. If a Palestinian leader looks too good, they can kill him. If the protests are too peaceful, they can shoot a few people until they turn a bit violent. Hamas was promoted to weaken Fatah. And so on. Hamas has proposed multiple times long term ceasefires (10 years) and has recognised the 1967 borders. All these proposals went completely ignored and mostly unmentioned in the Western media because that's not useful to Israel.
  - nashashmi 2y ago
    The reason is as you say: If someone gets too popular or a leadership looks too promising, Israel shoots them or compromises them. Fatah is seen as corrupt and liberal group too conflicted to create any meaningful movements for Palestinians. Hamas is seen as more sincere movement and has stronger support. They are primarily a social movement with a military wing. And so they are a stronger threat to Israel than Fatah could be. Fatah for its part is compromisable and pliable where as Hamas is a conservative strict disciplined movement with no hope for Israel to corrupt them.
  - wordofx 2y ago
    [flagged]
mmooss 2y ago
> they can fall easily into the trap of using party slogans used by proscribed organisations. It's taking it way to far to suppress speech - political speech, the most important speech - for slipping in the 'wrong' slogans. > My understanding of Hamas is that they are not considered a legitimate army, but if they were they would be guilty of an insurmountable number of war crimes While Hamas commits many horrors and is oppressive and awful, I don't think the ligitimate army argument holds water: If Hamas acted like a legitimate army under the laws of war, they'd be massacred in an instant. It would require them to dress in uniforms so they can be identified, and only fight against the enemy's military. Hamas has some rifles and RPGs and a few rockets. Their enemy has tanks, fighter planes, etc etc etc. If Hamas wanted to be a legitimate army, their only option would be to immediately disband. The laws of war seem written by large powers to protect their interests. There are legitimate 'freedom-fighting' insurgents out there who also are limited in their ability to be a 'legitimate army'. > (not unlike the IDF as many would say). Showing support for such things is beyond reasonable accepted discourse in my home country. So can people show support for either Israel (it's not the IDF, it's a political entity - Israel) or Hamas (also a political entity)? How do they talk about the war?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]