Isn't it weird that I can't find any western media outlets reporting this? Super weird right, I just can't figure out why.
Surely you can find a source that spins it in a negative way?
cannot be equated with terrorism
The only terrorists here are the "israeli" militants.
love how that guy who climbed the fence and got shot by his own guys on the walk back wasn't considered a terrorist by the media despite 1) being a lone wolf and 2) not operating as part of an authorised military action. I suppose that latter point is because all Israeli's take part in an authorised military action as an occupying force every second of every day.
Cuz words like that are usually used for countries, while "israel" is just a western colony in Palestine.
I mean, Jewish people originally heralded from around the eastern Mediterranean, middle east? That would make them historically middle eastern rather than western. Or are we strictly talking about western powers giving the Jewish people a 'homeland' after the second world war and the holocaust?
Let's set aside the multiple issues with "I think one of my distant ancestors lived here 2000 years ago, or maybe just other members of my religious group, therefore I have a right to live here today" and assume that yes, that sort of historical/ancestral claim gives comtemporary Jewish people a right to live in Palestine. Even in the most generous light imaginable, it would not give them a right to build an ethnostate by committing genocide on the current inhabitants. Israel is so far past anything that could be reasonably granted from ancient Jews living in Palestine that there is no possible defense along those lines.
Or are we strictly talking about western powers giving the Jewish people a 'homeland' after the second world war and the holocaust?
Yes, that's what people mean when they refer to Israel as a colony of Europe/the U.S.
The giant gaping hole in calling Israel a "western colony" is that it has no homeland. It's not a British colony, or a French colony, or a colony of any other country. If Israel as a country stops existing, the vast majority of its citizens don't have citizenship in any other country and have literally nowhere else to go. Therefore it's not a colony and it's not colonialism, it's an independent country.
Sure I was born in Britain with British citizenship, but I identify as Middle Eastern so I should be granted somebody else's land where they are currently living.
These people should be blasted into fucking space if they need a homeland so badly. Zionism cannot even exist without the antisemitic belief in a fifth column. Are Jews an alien element in Western society, or do they belong to the societies in which they were born?
I will tell you this: Middle Eastern people do not eat schnitzel.
I try to understand reality, not fiction. What about you?
Edit: actually I do try to understand fiction quite often, but it usually doesn't pretend to be reality
Get ratio'd by these cats:
Show
Show
Show
Show
And by this owl:
Show
And also by this penguin:
Show
I won't pretend every single bit was 100% legit, but you don't pretend that every single bit was 100% stolen.
"Your honor, I only stole some of what I'm accused of stealing, not all of it" is not a great defense
Zionist “A land without a people for a people without a land” bullshit.
When the British expelled criminals to Australia they couldn't return home. Was Australia not a colony? A ton of European immigrants to the American colonies intended their journeys to be one-way trips, and were functionally barred from returning by cost. Does that mean there were no colonies in the Americas?
Besides, throughout history you almost never see settlers leaving en masse when colonial administrations end. Sure, some recent arrivees may turn around, and some administrators who moved there mostly to work in the colonial government may leave, but you really never see the main body of settlers leave. You didn't even have this in South Africa. They simply have to live under a government where they can't shoot the locals with impunity.
That doesn't really address the point though... Israel is independent, and was so from the start. It's not bound to any other western country's rule, which is the first requirement for being a colony.
the vast majority of its citizens don't have citizenship in any other country and have literally nowhere else to go. Therefore it's not a colony
It directly refutes this.
If you're leaning on Israel being formally independent, they're about as independent from the West (particularly the U.S.) as a college freshman getting their tuition paid by Mom and Dad. No one here is talking about Israel being independent on paper, we're talking about how it interacts with other countries in reality.
My point is that Israel is not a colony and has a right to exist.
I am not excusing what is being done to Palestinians. I strive for peace, and Israel is showing no signs of it anymore, though it absolutely did just a few decades ago. But no one is saying all of Russia doesn't have a right to exist because it attacked Ukraine. No one is saying USA or Canada don't have a right to exist because of how they historically treated and are still treating native Americans. And no one should be saying that Israel doesn't have a right to exist.
Coexistence is the only solution. It seems impossible today, but it's the only possible solution that could possibly work. Anything else is even more detached from reality.
"No country is fully independent" says nothing about whether Israel is properly classified as a colony. It's a platitude.
a right to exist
Another platitude. What do you mean by this? Israel's current actions are indefensible. Many of its past actions are indefensible. Its policy of neither recognizing a Palestinian state nor granting equal citizenship to Palestinians is indefensible. It must either fundamentally change or be replaced by a government worth supporting, like South Africa before it.
It certainly does not have a right to continue existing in its current form, no more than Nazi Germany did.
You know that many Israelis did come from anglosphere or now-EU states, right? It's not like it's just a new social formation of people who already lived in the region.
Did apartheid South Africa have a right to defend itself? Did Rhodesia? Did French Algeria?
No. Regimes like these have one right: The right to be thrown in the dustbin of history and to be replaced by a more just order.
Israel is making it's own decisions and will happily shrug off any criticism from the Western powers
There has been zero sincere criticism from the West. If you circumvent Congress to give Israel more money and openly state you are unconditionally supporting it, I don't buy it if you leak a story about being furious with them behind closed doors. You shouldn't, either.
Why should they have a right to defend themselves? It would be more ethical if they all killed themselves.
Can I just lay claim to random pieces of land in Africa? I mean all people came from there at one point right?
I declare all of Sweden a homeland for the oppressed Stalinists (I have an incredibly remote connection to Norse settlers along with almost everyone else in my country)
Don't ask why genetic tests are banned in Israel, worst mistake of my life
It's a project overwhelmingly lead by western states that has resulted in a huge importing of people who were born and raised in western states pretending they are indigenous to the region. If not for the west, Israel would neither have the resources to maintain its colonial project nor the population needed for occupying Palestine.
the maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry
Finally someone with some international clout says the obvious
I love that the generic lib response to this is to engage in Whataboutism regarding Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan. If you see someone doing this, remember to ask them how many countries recognize Palestine as a state versus any of those other places.
Really weird that libs continue to hang into any sentiment regarding Tibet when the Dalai Lama literally just tried to get a child to suck on his tongue in public just last year.
Even before he lost all credibility, the Dalai Lama said he would drop independence and pursue autonomy for Tibet as a part of China.
All this is ignoring the wide popular support by Tibetan serfs for overthrowing their Lama masters in the first place.
It was only recently that I learned China took over Tibet in the 1700s. You would think it happened a decade ago the way people talk about it.
Yeah, China has a stronger claim over Tibet than the US over its entire territory.
Also its beyond meaningless when you consider that at most idk 3% of the population of Xinjiang and 1% in Tibet is considering themselves to be occupied by China and are remotely likely to participate or aid in an armed struggle against the CPC, even at the best possible conditions
Like sure, Tibetians have a right to engage in an armed anti-colonial struggle or kickstart an indeginous liberation movement ok. You probably couldnt even fill an NBA stadium with those willing so what does that leave their lib free Tibet dreams. The CIA was trying to recruit and instigate an anti-chinese sessesionist movement last century and they gave up because they couldnt find enough willing Tibetians to get the project off the ground. And they had a budget of dozens and dozens of millions to pay off poor ass Tibetians and they still couldnt find any fertile sessesionist sentiment. And thats on record
BREAKING: HAMAS OFFICIAL STATEMENT
We appreciate the position expressed by the People's Republic of China, during the public hearings held by the International Court of Justice, on the legal consequences of the occupation policies in the Palestinian Territory, and its affirmation of the legality of the occupied peoples' pursuit of self-determination, by various means, including armed resistance, and the necessity not to confuse terrorism with And the armed struggle practiced by the Palestinian people against the Zionist occupation.
We also value the positions of the countries participating in the sessions, which confirmed the widespread violations of international law practiced by the terrorist occupation entity against the Palestinian people and their occupied land, including massacres and genocide in the Gaza Strip, violations, killing, and expansion of settlement in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and work to bring about demographic changes in the Palestinian land. It aims to Judaize her and tamper with her identity.
The terrorist occupation government’s boycott of the court sessions confirms once again its disregard for international institutions, and its policy of turning its back on international resolutions and commitments, which requires a clear position from the international community to end the rogue Zionist occupation, and to stop all its violations and crimes against our Palestinian people.
The problem with your comparison with Taiwan is Taiwan is an island that is part of China but is currently controlled by an occupying force. This is agreed upon by almost all nations except for 12, the US also agrees on this btw.
What the west is saying is that regardless of this, China does not have the right to an armed resistance against Taiwan even though they consider it part of China. They even agreed to arm Taiwan to prevent this attack from happening.
So in terms of their statement on Palestine, this is actually consistent. The Palestinians have a right to kick out their occupiers, much like China has the right to kick out Taiwan's occupiers.
You view it differently, but as I stated before almost all members of the UN agree Taiwan is part of China.
*Edit: On a personal level I don't actually agree with this. I don't want an invasion of Taiwan. I'm merely pointing out the "gotcha" you tried to set up doesn't actually make sense. Instead it's actually quite consistent with China's position on Taiwan.
*Edit 2: This is also why China seems petty and runs around making sure all nations that trade with China state there's only one China. That's what the whole Lithuania thing was about. China is stating if the majority of the UN believes in a 2 party solution, then the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. Since the majority of UN believes in a 1 party solution for Taiwan, then it's the Taiwanese who are the occupiers and China has a right to defend itself.
*Edit 3: Ironically, the same cannot be said for China's consistency on the SCS. If you wanted a "gotcha" then China's claim to the SCS is absurd. But that said, they never said it was OK for them to be in an armed conflict over that. So I guess take that how you will.
Those 12 also agree it's part of China, they just disagree on which part is controlled by an illegitimate rebel government
That fact that China is the one saying it has no impact on the validity of the argument.
