The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is much more nuanced. Both countries' current heads of state are kinda like "all this land is my country's, the other country should not exist." It's unclear who is right.
The Russo-Ukranian conflict is clear. One leader is claiming the land of the other, the other just want it back. Ukraine's government is not claiming half of Russia.
Palestine has attacked territory that was assigned to Palestine by the UN in 1947. The UN also makes it very clear that a country may lawfully recover occupied territory "by any means, including armed force". UN laws are thus very clear: Ukraine and Palestine can recover territories by force. Now, that doesn't mean you should support them in their struggle to do so, but if you don't, it must be for some other reason (e.g., Israel taking over would constitute a huge strategic gain for the US, while Russia taking over would destabilize the world and thus benefit small or weakly aligned players).
Wait, what!? How would this be a "huge strategic gain for the U.S."?
You could argue that it's a proxy conflict between the West and radicalized Muslim states. Sure. I would even listen to a discussion about rich elites using governments to keep areas destabilized in order to further their own fortunes.
But saying that somehow the U.S. would gain a huge strategic advantage is reaching.
What would the strategic value be? Is there oil there? Would they put a base there that somehow had more capabilities than facilities they already have in the area?
This isn't 5D chess. This is two cultures that refuse to get along, being supported openly, and behind closed doors by larger nations.
Israel hates it's neighboring countries for good reason. Those countries hate Israel for good reasons.
The human rights violations are disgusting and I support the freeing of Palestine.
But when you do shit like what the Hamas just did, you destroy any sort of moral high ground you may have had. Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter what your culture is.
You can't divorce Hamas from Palestine either, like some commentors are trying to do.
all this land is my country's, the other country should not exist.
One of those countries is an ethno-religious state that is exclusive of the other. Can you guess which one?
If you are an ethno-religious exclusivist who says "your country shouldn't exist only mine!" and I am a country that multi-religious, and say "actually my country should be the prevailing one, not your exclusivist one", you gotta realize those two are massively different, unlike you portray.
The Russo-Ukranian conflict is clear. One leader is claiming the land of the other
Russia's original pretext for the war is not about territorial gains. It was supposedly regarding Ukraine's attack on Donetsk, Luhansk, and ethnic Russian populations in general (such as the Odessa massacre), what they also called "de-nazification" of the Ukrainian government, and Ukraine's bid to join NATO. This is easily verifiable, but I can provide you a sources on this if you doubt me.
I am not claiming what Russia is saying is true, but it is not what you make it seem to make your argument.
Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for their independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is much more nuanced. Both countries' current heads of state are kinda like "all this land is my country's, the other country should not exist." It's unclear who is right.
The Russo-Ukranian conflict is clear. One leader is claiming the land of the other, the other just want it back. Ukraine's government is not claiming half of Russia.
"Unclear who is right"
No it's pretty clear, out with the colonizer government. How is this a question?
It isn’t that nuanced. The colonized, subjugated population is rising up rather than laying down to continue getting slaughtered.
Liberate Palestine.
From the river to the sea
Palestine has attacked territory that was assigned to Palestine by the UN in 1947. The UN also makes it very clear that a country may lawfully recover occupied territory "by any means, including armed force". UN laws are thus very clear: Ukraine and Palestine can recover territories by force. Now, that doesn't mean you should support them in their struggle to do so, but if you don't, it must be for some other reason (e.g., Israel taking over would constitute a huge strategic gain for the US, while Russia taking over would destabilize the world and thus benefit small or weakly aligned players).
Wait, what!? How would this be a "huge strategic gain for the U.S."?
You could argue that it's a proxy conflict between the West and radicalized Muslim states. Sure. I would even listen to a discussion about rich elites using governments to keep areas destabilized in order to further their own fortunes.
But saying that somehow the U.S. would gain a huge strategic advantage is reaching.
What would the strategic value be? Is there oil there? Would they put a base there that somehow had more capabilities than facilities they already have in the area?
This isn't 5D chess. This is two cultures that refuse to get along, being supported openly, and behind closed doors by larger nations.
Israel hates it's neighboring countries for good reason. Those countries hate Israel for good reasons.
The human rights violations are disgusting and I support the freeing of Palestine.
But when you do shit like what the Hamas just did, you destroy any sort of moral high ground you may have had. Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter what your culture is.
You can't divorce Hamas from Palestine either, like some commentors are trying to do.
Tribalism at its worst.
One of those countries is an ethno-religious state that is exclusive of the other. Can you guess which one?
If you are an ethno-religious exclusivist who says "your country shouldn't exist only mine!" and I am a country that multi-religious, and say "actually my country should be the prevailing one, not your exclusivist one", you gotta realize those two are massively different, unlike you portray.
Russia's original pretext for the war is not about territorial gains. It was supposedly regarding Ukraine's attack on Donetsk, Luhansk, and ethnic Russian populations in general (such as the Odessa massacre), what they also called "de-nazification" of the Ukrainian government, and Ukraine's bid to join NATO. This is easily verifiable, but I can provide you a sources on this if you doubt me.
I am not claiming what Russia is saying is true, but it is not what you make it seem to make your argument.
Its unlcear who is right? Tell me, who lived there first before the US swung its dick around and displaced all of them?
No, its not.
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-184195/
Seems pretty clear.