Exactly what I’m saying. And no, I don’t find it wrong at all to think this way. I’m sorry if you were angered or offended in some way by my previous comment.
I hate to have to say it, but you’ve labelled the a party that still commits atrocities as “right” simply because they’ve committed fewer atrocities. I believe this point requires no further discussion. Both can be wrong for committing atrocities. Again, the main argument you’ve got here is “Israel bad, Palestine good” and “The things Palestine does are fine because they had the moral justification to begin with.”
You are too ideological. I’m a political realist; you’re a political idealist. You looked at what “is right” and then decided that anything done in pursuit of that right must be good. You’ve allowed the ends to justify the means.
In political realism, you must sometimes force off the justice boner and realise that the best result realistically possible is not the one that is the fairest or rights the most historical wrongs. This is what I was trying to get at with my original comment. History is not fair and never will be, and blindly trying to change that is unconstructive. You have to play the cards you’re dealt. It was a historical wrong for Israeli settlers to colonise Palestinian land. At the same time, I am saying that in the near-future, it will be impossible to right this wrong. The Israelis will never be punished for what they did. Palestinians will never control land from the west bank of the River Jordan to the Mediterranean again. Believe me, they want that, and they’re maybe even justified in wanting that, but it doesn’t matter what is right. We need to think of what is the best way to resolve the situation right now. It is pointless to argue about who is right and who is wrong because that means nothing. That is the harsh reality of international geopolitics. That’s how it is now, how it’s been since the dawn of human civilisation, and as long as the idea of the sovereign state exists, that’s how it’s always going to be.
I will give one final parting analogy: Imagine you are tied up and being beaten on the ground by an assailant who is many times stronger than you. The beating has gone on for several minutes now until your assailant offers you a deal: “If you allow me to hit you ten more times and give me all the money in your wallet, I will let you go. Otherwise, I will shoot you dead and take your wallet anyway.” Is this a fair deal? Of course not. Are you “right” to refuse and your assailant “wrong” for even daring to offer such a thing (and putting you in the situation of having to consider it)? Without question. But at the same time, you’d be a fool not to say “yes” to that. You’d also have to be extremely stupid to say “fuck you” in response to that. Even if there’s only a slim chance that they’ll actually uphold their end of the bargain. Honour, after all, doesn’t actually have any value. Your life does.
That is all I have to say on the matter. I will read your reply if you devote the time to write one but I’ve said all that needs to be said.
You are correct. I would be easily radicalised, as would most people if I were placed into such a situation. I’m not immune from the same forces that radicalised everyone else there too.
I do not equate colonisers to the colonised, however, one must recognise that both have done things that they shouldn’t have done. At this point, “but he started it” is no longer an excuse for racial and religious hatred. It’s been 70 years already. People have been born into the conflict, grown up in the conflict, and died from the conflict.
The State of Israel has committed acts of genocide against the Palestinian people. I do not deny it. But at the same time, I cannot wholeheartedly support the other party in this conflict when their methods of resistance include terror attacks, hostage-taking, and indiscriminate bombings—the same things they decry Israel for doing. The Palestinians have rejected several offers of peace. The UN partition plan—rejected. Two state solution proposals—rejected. Peaceful coexistence—rejected. Instead, they counter with a Palestinian state stretching from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. Palestinian leaders want to wipe the State of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants off the face of the earth, and Israeli leaders want to wipe the State of Palestine and its Arab inhabitants off the face of the earth.
You can say that the Palestinians were right/to begin with—that they had no obligation to cede any territory at all to the Israelis. And you’d be right. But it’s important to recognise that being right to begin does not give anyone a mandate to do whatever they want. You can be right and move yourself into the wrong by how you act, and this is exactly what happened. Yes, I sympathise with Palestinians whose lands were taken from them by Israelis. At the same time, I condemn those who take matters into their own hands by bombing Israeli music festivals.
Instead, what is happening is that the situation may quickly be moving to a forcibly-imposed one-state solution with that state being the State of Israel. And that would be a tragedy.
This is what I mean by “history is nuanced”. There is no black and white here and to portray any situation as such would be naïve.
“War criminal” is not a term applied liberally to describe people who presided over bad things. It is a term defined by treaty in international law.
Nope, just that Hitler is one notable counterexample. There are plenty more European war criminals.
Don’t forget Hideki Tojo too. Not white, but still a light-skinned war criminal.
Vladamir Putin is wanted for crimes against humanity right now. There is a warrant out for his arrest.
And are we just allowing the current situation in Israel to slip our minds voluntarily?
I’ll add your snap if you can recite the full rules of Magic the Gathering
A reminder for context: it’s not summer yet in Antarctica. Summer doesn’t start until December. It’s still supposed to be cold.
I’m curious to know about the interactions that caused OP to post this meme.
That’s true, but most Lemmy clients default their sort to “Local” (only posts from the instance you registered on). I don’t think there are many dedicated NSFW instances that are federated, at least not with my instance (lemmy.ml). Your experience may differ. The problem is that if few people can access and are aware of a community, then fewer people will post in it. That might explain why there is a lack of good porn communities on Lemmy compared to Reddit.
I think many major instances prohibit NSFW communities.
I thought about that but the cost of shipping the ouster sauce exceeds its value
This task seems quite important, doesn’t it? Maybe it’s time for the workers to teach the company the meaning of “inelastic demand”
Speaking of, a local Oriental store gives me a free bottle of oyster sauce when I buy $100 worth of groceries. I collected 5 bottles of oyster sauce before even finishing the first one and I tried offering them to my grandma but she said she had like ten bottles of oyster sauce too. The next time I went there I asked the clerk if they had anything other than oyster sauce, and they said “nope” and put another bottle of oyster sauce in my bag.
It’s gone rancid
This is a classic repost.
If you think studying literature is to teach you literature, you’re sorely mistaken. Similar to if you think you study mathematics to learn mathematics.
You are taught literature so you can better communicate with other people. What is the author’s intention with this passage? What are they trying to say? What might their motivations be? Now apply this to a letter from a potential business partner or a politician’s tweet and you might begin to see how what you were taught becomes relevant.
Why are you taught grammar? Who cares whether you use the Oxford comma or not? Who has the need to know what mood, theme, and figurative language are? Apply this in the context of trying to write a professional email to your boss or trying to tell a story to engage other people, and maybe you’ll start to see that it wasn’t worthless.
Why do we need to know the way to prove that the angles of a triangle add up to 180? Who needs to know the Quadratic formula and how to apply it? It’s so you know how to think rationally and apply logic rigourously, so you don’t fall into familiar logical traps that we see on the evening news and the Internet every day.
Why do you need to know how cells reproduce? Why do we need to know how the pH scale works? It’s so when people on Facebook claim that vaccines erase your DNA or that alkaline water prevents cancer, you’ll know better.