Personally, if I didn't want to get shot in the back by an angry Palestinian fighting for liberation, I would live somewhere that isn't an illegal settlement mere kilometers from the open air prison where they're held.
Were the Native American attacks on white settlers encroaching on their land unjustified? Were those settlers innocent, or participating in the ongoing occupation and genocide?
Yup it's only acceptable to support something until it actually posses any meaningful threat to the status quo, then suddenly the checklists and akshuallys and Lets not xxx get thrown out, tis the folly that is western social "Justisce".
People go and settle land that is not theirs, taking it from the rightful owners, and the regime defends against any attempt to prevent that by using violence under the guise of claiming it is their right to "defend themselves".
These people are not innocent. They have actively chosen to take part in settling land that is not theirs, stealing it from the palestinians. They are willing participants in the zionist project of settling the land. Your participation in the claim that they are just defending themselves is literally participation in helping settler colonialism by perpetuating its myths.
The Palestinians are the ones defending their land. The settlers are the ones stealing it.
You cannot be an israeli and not partake in the attacks on Palestinian civilians. That's what makes you an Israeli. Literally the only way to be an Israeli.
There is a minority of Palestinians who hold "Israeli" citizenship. Their existence is often employed as a zionist version of the "but I have a black friend" nonsense. The zionist settler state treats them like shit and mistrusts them.
Some Native Americans have American citizenship (not sure about the situation for those outside the USA). Does that magically erase the genocidal history of the USA?
But I guess the serial killers that invaded your house and killed your family should be thanked profusely for gracefully allowing you to sleep in the closet.
I'm not defending Zionism in any way, shape or form. I'm just pointing out the fact that a minority of Palestinians have "Israeli" citizenship while still being oppressed, much like native Americans.
This, of course, does not justify settler colonialism. Palestinians have an inalienable right to resist colonisation and any violence done to the colonisers by the colonised is justified self-defense.
You keep whining about unarmed civilians while completely ignoring the fact that the settlers shouldn’t be there. Being unarmed isn’t a card that you can play that absolves you of consequences. As long as you are an invader and occupier you will rightfully be at risk
You’re not a civilian if you actively partake in an ongoing ethnic cleansing.
Removed by mod
Personally, if I didn't want to get shot in the back by an angry Palestinian fighting for liberation, I would live somewhere that isn't an illegal settlement mere kilometers from the open air prison where they're held.
Sounds like a skill issue to me!
Were the Native American attacks on white settlers encroaching on their land unjustified? Were those settlers innocent, or participating in the ongoing occupation and genocide?
I think we all know how this lib feels about that…
Support indigenous resistance until it poses any actual threat, then advocate for finishing the genocide
Yup it's only acceptable to support something until it actually posses any meaningful threat to the status quo, then suddenly the checklists and akshuallys and Lets not xxx get thrown out, tis the folly that is western social "Justisce".
Do you understand how settler colonialism works?
People go and settle land that is not theirs, taking it from the rightful owners, and the regime defends against any attempt to prevent that by using violence under the guise of claiming it is their right to "defend themselves".
These people are not innocent. They have actively chosen to take part in settling land that is not theirs, stealing it from the palestinians. They are willing participants in the zionist project of settling the land. Your participation in the claim that they are just defending themselves is literally participation in helping settler colonialism by perpetuating its myths.
The Palestinians are the ones defending their land. The settlers are the ones stealing it.
You cannot be an israeli and not partake in the attacks on Palestinian civilians. That's what makes you an Israeli. Literally the only way to be an Israeli.
There are literally Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship
no
There is a minority of Palestinians who hold "Israeli" citizenship. Their existence is often employed as a zionist version of the "but I have a black friend" nonsense. The zionist settler state treats them like shit and mistrusts them.
Some Native Americans have American citizenship (not sure about the situation for those outside the USA). Does that magically erase the genocidal history of the USA?
But I guess the serial killers that invaded your house and killed your family should be thanked profusely for gracefully allowing you to sleep in the closet.
I'm not defending Zionism in any way, shape or form. I'm just pointing out the fact that a minority of Palestinians have "Israeli" citizenship while still being oppressed, much like native Americans.
This, of course, does not justify settler colonialism. Palestinians have an inalienable right to resist colonisation and any violence done to the colonisers by the colonised is justified self-defense.
You keep whining about unarmed civilians while completely ignoring the fact that the settlers shouldn’t be there. Being unarmed isn’t a card that you can play that absolves you of consequences. As long as you are an invader and occupier you will rightfully be at risk
You should be directing your reprehension at Israel exclusively, since Israel exclusively has the power to end all of this.
lmao your hexbear account got owned so hard you made a lemm.ee one to keep posting your settler bullshit
So tourists visiting contested areas are actively participating in genocide? Pretty bold take, don't you think?
Yes. Not even a little bold.
You keep using the term “contested areas” to obscure active colonialism
Yes. They are.