It’s the principle of it.

One of us has a morally defensible position backed with historical examples of similar events and the other doesn’t know how to even recognize a genocide is happening before his very eyes. That’s really the crux of the whole thing. You simply don’t see the wholesale slaughter of brown people as a genocide. My argument relies entirely on the moral backbone that opposing genocide is righteous. Your argument is to refuse your own eyes.

If that was your family, born behind a wall and then bombed to hell, I bet you would have a different tune. Sadly for people like you with no moral philosophy whatsoever, having no empathy for people experiencing things you don’t is pretty normal. It’s why Nazi Germany was able to do what it did. It’s why south Africa got away with what it did. It’s why the native Americans were genocided as they were. And it’s why right at this moment you fence sit a slaughter.

Of course it’s terrorism. But there is a difference between an all powerful state committing terrorism on people it doesn’t have to, and a people committing terrorism on their occupiers and genocides after having literally every other option of fighting back being removed.

You’ll nod your head to JFKs quote “those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable” and then sit on the fence when the inevitable happens. Acting like both sides are in the wrong when one side, the one with power in the situation committed to actions that everyone always knew would lead to this. I blame Israel for the death of its civilians due to palastinian terrorism.

Same as I do with the polish Warsaw ghetto uprising.

Same as I do with the IRA.

Same as I do with native American uprisings.

History is filled with noble causes resulting to terrorism due to the complete lack of any other options. It’s not great. It’s not cool. It fuckin sucks. But at the end of the day, it is ALWAYS the fault of the oppressor. Every time. Always.

While a funny quip, states are capable of terrorism. See Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, the blitz. Ya know I was hoping I would off the top of my head remember more than just WW2 examples, but here we are. I mean, besides Israel at the moment but that’s the topic so doesn’t really fit to the list.

Pretty normal to call a state that commits genocide a Nazi state as that’s the thing the Nazis did. That and the race mixing laws. Don’t forget it’s illegal to race mix in Israel. Ethno state, famously also a Nazi thing. This isn’t hyperbole, it’s a pretty direct comparison.

And the Nazis had a point or two as well didn’t they? Let’s break down the pros and cons of genocide, let’s not be so hasty to judge.

Unlike you, I don’t need to wait for historians to reach a consensus on the evils of my time.

Eem

Oh no, let me understand the perspective of people bombing civilians to cause them to lose faith in the local militia group for the sake of colonization and conquest. I’m sure they have a good reason.

Gottem

What else do you call the bombing of civilians.

Ramificate Deez nuts

Oh look, we are both misunderstanding each other, posting protests as if I am against them. Look friend, neither of us like genocide. We both recognize it as a genocide. We both think action against the state in protest of the genocide to be a good thing. We both have probably participated in similar forms of action to that effect. Let’s give each other the benefit of the doubt on that front. My argument is that voting does not diminish any of those actions. But not voting does nothing but increase the chance of a worse outcome overall both in relation to the genocide of palastinians and the harm that would come domestically to other at risk folk.

Terms like “it legitimizes electoral politics” or similar are nice self justifications for ignoring that choice, but you and I both know regardless of choice in the matter, the genocide will continue. So keep protesting. Keep direct actioning up the place. But also, take the half second to engage in a wee bit of lesser evilism, even if it hurts our pride to do so.

There. I didn’t do any shut up middle school lines. I made an argument.

Them palastinians will sure appreciate your direct action of not voting. That’ll fix them right up.

By specifically acknowledging that no matter the choice, the genocide will continue and purposely putting that concept at the front while also acknowledging between the two options, one will be better than the other. I mean, your currently providing GDP toward genocide. If it was so all encompassingly important to you, you would be more radical than to argue on Lemmy. Put your life on the line soldier, or accept that there is only so much us western haters of genocide can do in this specific case at this specific point in time.

How do you avoid personally attacking someone who so personally holds up their “I am evil” sign? Like, if I say “go fuck yourself” to the comment I’m responding to them I’m just going to get deleted for incivility. But the man is praising an invasion by a genocidal regime and I’m kinda fuckin tired of being forced to be civil with someone so incapable of civility themselves.

Except that the people saying this are making a distinction between the two. Do you want to interpret what they are trying to say or do you wanna play word games? Disingenuous.

I’d love to see an explanation for that one.

Endorsement means you like them. This makes it clear they do not.

Landlords do not build housing, nor do they do repair work. So I’m gonna say the scarry trigger word for all you libertarians out there to gasp at. Gubberment.

Imagine a world where housing was given on a per-need basis. People still need to travel for work and stay for months at a time, except it’s understood that the job getting done is more important than a landlord profiting off the fact you have to travel for it.