You must log in or # to comment.
I know the comments are immediately filled by these assholes but I’m glad they are being down voted and OP is being up voted.
Its so akward to engage with people like that… it’s like people supporting russia because ukraine is supported by america. 2 can be shit at once. Its not that hard.
If isis starts attacking israel, that does not mean you need to support isis…
if in some bizzare, hypothetical fantasy world, isis somehow invaded israel and stopped the ongoing genocide there and delivered a perfect two state solution overnight, would you be morally against specifically that action because it was isis who did it?
to be clear, i’m not asking whether you’d be against isis as a whole: just whether you’d be against isis ending the current israel-palestine situation peacefully
If they did that I’d be grateful to them. And if I had wheels I’d be a wagon.
Wagon dat azzz
so you agree that a group can do bad things, or even be on the whole bad by a very wide margin, but still do something good worthy of praise?
Yes? Is that supposed to be a gotcha?
If isis starts attacking israel, that does not mean you need to support isis…
it was a response to this, which in the context of the original post, has a sentiment that directly contradicts what you just agreed with
Acknowledging that a terrible organization has done something good doesn’t mean I support them.
This is you “so what if hypothetically Putin solves world hunger, homelessness, and redistributed all wealth so everyone was on equal playing field. Oh, oh. And he disarmed all their nukes and led the disarmament of all nuclear armed nations? Oh AND He helped solved climate change? Then would think he’s a good guy?” Like those hypotheticals are bonkers and useless.
it’s called a thought experiment
do i think anybody is realistically going to kidnap me and plumb my kidneys into a world famous violinist? no. but i can still use that hypothetical to make a point. do i think anybody is likely to run into a barn at 0.9c while holding a long ladder? no, but i can still use that to learn something.
based on your response, i presume you agree that a group can do bad things, or even be on the whole bad by a very wide margin, but still do something good worthy of praise?
Yeah but being bad and doing a good thing from time to time doesn’t make you good. Your thought experiment doesn’t provide any value because no one is saying everything the bad groups do is always and forever bad. It’s more like the severity of badness outweighs any good they are doing when it comes to the perception of them.
I’m sure Hitler gave his friends very nice and thoughtful presents. At the same time he was ordering a genocide. Are those presents then bad? Not on the surface. Is he redeemable because of that? No.
Yeah but being bad and doing a good thing from time to time doesn’t make you good.
sure, and i’m not saying that the hypothetical would make isis good
i’m saying that it would make fantasy isis worthy of praise for this specific hypothetical achievement
I remember when Al-Qaeda was condemning ISIS and the entire world was like confused agreement
I just want to oppose Israeli genocide without saying that the “A Curse Upon The Jews” folks targeting random countries’ civilian shipping are kosher (ha) because they said they’re doing it for A Really Good Cause, Promise™, despite the utter lack of apparent effect on that cause, and dubious mechanisms for even its theoretical effect on that cause.
Israeli genocide? Or the Houthis having “A Curse Upon The Jews” on their flag?
The Houthis thing. The Israeli genocide is fairly straight forward to understand.
Bonus: Apple spellcheck does its damnedest to not acknowledge the genocide. Someone should have words with Tim Apple.
They’re a very ‘colorful’ bunch.
God is the Greatest
Death to America
Death to Israel
A Curse Upon the Jews
Victory to Islam
Yay. More religious wing nuts. Just what we need more of these days. 🙄
2/5, try again.
What does this mean
There’s 5 points, I support 2 of them.
Works on mine.
It’s the same jabronis that approved of russia bombing a childrens hospital.
It’s bad when Russia does it and it’s bad Isreal does it
That’s how I got banned from 196 calling out bs like that. Pretty sure /u/Moss is a full blown tankie
196? Where the banner reads “Fuck tankies”?
Go have a conversation with Moss about Hamas. I’m paraphrasing here because it’s been half a year, but what I said that got me banned was that the Hamas leadership and the Israeli leadership both spend the lives of Palestinians like Monopoly money. It’s in the best interest of the leadership of both parties for the conflict to continue. Neither side wants peace and the civilians are fucked because of it.
I was banned for being a genocide Apologist. While also condemning the genocide…
Fundies and tankies there never was a better match made.
Hamas has already agreed to no longer govern the Gaza Strip, as long as Palestinians receive liberation and a unified government can take place. Israel has been the only one to reject the UN Resolution 3-Stage Permanent Ceasefire put forth by the US. So how do you think that both sides don’t want peace? One side wants the end of a violent apartheid settler colonialist occupation, the other wants the complete ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people from Palestine.
Quote
During the current war, Hamas officials have said that the group does not want to return to ruling Gaza and that it advocates for forming a government of technocrats to be agreed upon by the various Palestinian factions. That government would then prepare for elections in Gaza and the West Bank, with the intention of forming a unified government.
Before that, both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
Israel has always been the obstacle for peace, because it is a Settler Colonialist Ethnostate founded on, and ever continuing, ethnic cleansing
Settlements
Israel justifies the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.
This type of settlement, where the native population gets ‘Transferred’ to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice.
- See: The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948, the Transfer Committee, and the JNF which led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate before the Nakba
The mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948:
Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967:
While the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements
The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.
State violence – official and otherwise – is part and parcel of Israel’s apartheid regime, which aims to create a Jewish-only space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The regime treats land as a resource designed to serve the Jewish public, and accordingly uses it almost exclusively to develop and expand existing Jewish residential communities and to build new ones. At the same time, the regime fragments Palestinian space, dispossesses Palestinians of their land and relegates them to living in small, over-populated enclaves.
The apartheid regime is based on organized, systemic violence against Palestinians, which is carried out by numerous agents: the government, the military, the Civil Administration, the Supreme Court, the Israel Police, the Israel Security Agency, the Israel Prison Service, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and others. Settlers are another item on this list, and the state incorporates their violence into its own official acts of violence. Settler violence sometimes precedes instances of official violence by Israeli authorities, and at other times is incorporated into them. Like state violence, settler violence is organized, institutionalized, well-equipped and implemented in order to achieve a defined strategic goal.
One or Two State Solution
The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.
- Avi Shlaim
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
Hamas officials should be held accountable for all war crimes committed, same as all Israeli officials. That said, there are many parallels between the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and Gaza.
In the Shadow of the Holocaust by Masha Gessen, the situation in Gaza is compared to the Warsaw Ghettos. The comparison was also made by a Palestinian poet who was later killed by an Israeli airstrike. Adi Callai, an Israeli, has also written on the parallels in his article The Gaza Ghetto Uprising and expanded upon in his corresponding video
Are they a blahaj admin?
Edit: they aren’t yay!
Well it seems most self-proclained “lefties” here have an appalling understanding of what that is and below the shallows they are quite misaligned with that side of the spectrum. Their words they one thing, their behaviour and outbursts a much more truthful thing. The term is nothing more than a Get Out of Jail FREE card for them.
Campism is a hell of a drug
I was on the side of Houthis after being oppressed by American-backed, Saudi-led military forces. But now it became clear they are lackeys of Iran who attack innocent sailors, who have no dog in the geopolitical dick measuring contest.
Yeah. I was never on the side of the Houthis, but I considered our support for Saudi-backed murderers instead of Iranian-backed murderers to be utterly pointless, except negatively insofar as it involved us backing a bunch of vile fuckers in a conflict we had no business being in.
Still wouldn’t support the Saudis if it were up to me. But now I certainly support retaliating against the Houthis until they stop attacking international civilian shipping.
Comments removed for trolling…… on a meme sub.
That’s novel.
Alrighty. I’ll bite. Link me to a source.
deleted by creator
Scroll the whole thread before I commented. Have any shown up in the last two hours?
Edit: No, or they are from users on a blocked instance? Can someone link them here?
Ah yes…
I am very disturbed by mean words on a flag and a naval blockade in protest to an ongoing genocide.
Hmmm
Clearly this is a full on commitment to the cause of the houthis /s
How very predictable that you regard downplaying atrocities from an insanely bigoted and oppressive government as ‘mean words on a flag’ as unexceptional.
Very predictable that you read that as a full on commitment by “leftists” to support maritime terrorism.
deleted by creator
Zing! Yah got me I guess… No… wait… I didn’t say shit about supporting houthis.
So we’ve got one comment, from one rando on the internet… And that was enough to go make this shitass meme.
I thought there would be something more substantial, like a Bernie Sanders staffer’s sister’s tweet or something.
So we’ve got one comment, from one rando on the internet… And that was enough to go make this shitass meme.
I could spend all day grabbing examples, but I know it wouldn’t matter to you. :)
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Fucking psychopaths would see the Palestinian laborer crushed under the boot of theocracy purely because “they shoot at jews sometimes tho.”
A little mask off there saying “Jews” instead of “Israelis”
Yes how mask off of me to point out the mask off rhetoric of Houthi stans.
That shared braincell spending an early weekend with the ex?
deleted by creator
no, it really isn’t.
Ideology aside, as geopolitical players they do kinda fuck compared to their peers. Constantly underestimated.
Yeah those guys are weird. Almost as weird as the “progressive except for Palestine” crowd.
Edit: actually, exactly like that crowd. Both are making exceptions to their progressivism for Palestine. Only some do it in a pro-Israeli and some in an anti-Israeli way. “Except for Palestine” both ways.
One can do a good action and a bad action at the same time. They can support a national liberation struggle and oppress their citizens at the same time. I don’t know why you’d have to make a final verdict, countries are not people you should hang out with. They are bureaucratic entities with interests that are a lot of the times opposite to those of the people. How about all counties are bad?
Also I don’t understand why you would hold the poorest country in the world that was facing a genocide and the worst humanitarian crisis in earth 5-10 years ago by the Saudis and the US to the same social standards as the West. These people are hungry, poor, destroyed in every way and up until recently had to fight to gain their independence. Who do you expect to rule except for these Houthi fighters? If the west and the Saudis had let them live, then we could talk. I see this stupid take so often like with Afghanistan, it’s frustrating.
Who do you expect to rule except for these Houthi fighters?
Holy fucking shit, please look into the history of the Yemeni Civil War. The idea of the Houthis as fighting for the independence of the Yemeni people is beyond absurd.
That’s some “Who do you expect to rule except the Taliban” level take-
I see this stupid take so often like with Afghanistan, it’s frustrating.
… of course.
So treating women like humans is optional for you. Got it.
Once you realize that the reason they are not treating women equal is because they’ve been uneducated and starved to death by imperial powers to reach the point to have this government, and not because they are stupid or something, then we can talk. Oh and once you learn to read how I never said it’s acceptable, but rather that we can applaud them for one thing and condemn them for another.
If you let them live for a couple of decades they will sort it out is the main idea.
Hey, just maybe they are uneducated and starved nearly to death by imperial powers and also absolute motherfuckers. Sounds like that.
Once you realize that the reason they are not treating women equal is because they’ve been uneducated and starved to death by imperial powers to reach the point to have this government
It’s incredibly racist how you assume no agency on the part of anyone who isn’t white. But that seems to be par for the course for a certain section of the online left.
It’s insane how Americans who wanted every Arab dead since the 90s suddenly want to moralize
It’s insane how people lecturing others about how “the lesser evil is still evil, and evil is unacceptable” are going all in to lick the boots of a bigoted fascist theocracy that rules over its stretch of Yemen by naked force for attacking civilians unrelated to the cause they’re supposedly supporting.
what’s your position on western sanctions on russia? innocent russians have definitely died as a result of the sanctions
do you agree with the notion of a blockade but not with the specific group doing it? can an action be bad solely because of the party that’s enacting it?
what’s your position on western sanctions on russia?
My position is that intentionally attacking civilians with military force is indefensible. I don’t know why that’s suddenly popular on some corners of the online left.
do you agree with the notion of a blockade but not with the specific group doing it?
-
I dispute that the Houthis are genuinely attempting to blockade Israel
-
I dispute that, even if they were, that their actions constitute in any way a viable way to blockade Israel
-
I dispute that, even if their blockade was successful, that it would meaningfully impact Israel’s ongoing genocide, considering that most trade that passes through the area isn’t going to Israel, and that the amount of trade that does pass through to Israel through Eilat is not nearly significant enough to damage their ongoing efforts, which are not exactly stymied by a lack of cars from China or a lack of diamonds from India.
-
I dispute that attacking civilians, a war crime, is morally acceptable. There are laws in the modern day, it’s not the fucking Bronze Age.
I dispute that, even if they were, that their actions constitute in any way a viable way to blockade Israel
so their actions are bad because you don’t think they’ll be effective? honestly, pressuring global trade has historically been a pretty good way of achieving goals in capitalism
I dispute that attacking civilians, a war crime, is morally acceptable.
again, sanctions on russia have definitely killed people
so you’re fine with people dying, just so long as they do it from freezing to death in their homes rather than by direct military action?
so their actions are bad because you don’t think they’ll be effective? honestly, pressuring global trade has historically been a pretty good way of achieving goals in capitalism
Thanks for giving up the game and admitting that you support this not because it blockades under 10% of Israel’s trade, but because it disrupts non-Israeli trade.
again, sanctions on russia have definitely killed people
I’m sorry that the words ‘attack’ and ‘war crime’ mean nothing to you.
because it disrupts non-Israeli trade
so, just to set a baseline here, are we agreed that
- what israel is doing is bad
- stopping israel from doing what they’re doing is good
- stopping israeli trade might stop what they’re doing
- therefore stopping israel from trading is good
given that trade is definitionally between two separate parties, one of the countries in the equation has to not be israel
how can you stop israel from trading without impacting other countries?
tldr: the sanctions on russia also have an impact on global trade, so if this is your redline, you should be anti-sanctions
I’m sorry that the words ‘attack’ and ‘war crime’ mean nothing to you.
are you saying the blockade is different to sanctions because russia attacked ukraine and is committing war crimes?
i’m not sure if you’ve paid attention to things in israel recently
how can you stop israel from trading without impacting other countries?
tldr: the sanctions on russia also have an impact on global trade, so if this is your redline, you should be anti-sanctions
A desperate backtrack after giving up the game. Sorry that “Let’s hurt trade between everyone we can, not just those trading with Israel” isn’t what most people would regard as just.
are you saying the blockade is different to sanctions because russia attacked ukraine and is committing war crimes?
Brush up on your English.
fucking christ can you stop wanking yourself off with rhetoric for 5 minutes and actually address something i’m saying? ta
-
Enforcing a punitive economic strategy isn’t the same as engaging in glorified pirate terrorism because Iran told you to but you totally insist it’s for palestinian liberation toats mcgoats my dudes!
Speaking as a Palestinian, fuck the houthis and their opportunistic bullshit with a hot iron.
Sanctions are not a blockade. Sanctions would be the Houthis stopping all of their own trade with Israel for example. The Houthis blockading Israel mesns they try to stop everybody from trading with Israel by force. Hence a blockade is an act of war.
And no I do not believe somebody being vegan is an act of war.
Hence a blockade is an act of war.
but we’re not talking about something being an act of war
we’re talking about whether it’s morally justifiable
are you saying any offensive war is automatically unjustifiable?
Right now the Houthis in practise blockade the Bab-el-Mandeb for everybody. The first ship they sunk Rubymar, was Belize flagged and Lebanese operated and ultimatly owned. It also caused a massive enviromental disaster in the region, due to carrying fertilizer.
What I am saying, is that an act of war against Lebanon, is not a moral response to actions of the state of Israel.
However you clearly disagree with that and consider any and all action justified as long as somebody labels them anti Israel.
