I genuinely do not know who the bad guys are. S lot of my leftist friends are against Israel, but from what I know Israel was attacked and is responding and trying to get their hostages back.
Enlighten me. Am I wrong? Why am I wrong?
And dumb it down for me, because apparently I’m an idiot.
Asking lemmy.ml if Israel is bad is not a great idea if you actually want a nuanced/balanced answer. Honestly, I’d recommend just taking your research elsewhere and steering clear of social media on this one.
Yes, we oppose Israel’s genocide here.
wasps 🤝 genocide
The resistance including Hamas, Ansar Allah, Iraqi resistance, Hezbollah, etc.
but from what I know Israel was attacked and is responding and trying to get their hostages back.
lol what. You do realize gaza is a concentration camp right? That’s like saying the Jews who fought back during the warsaw ghetto uprising were bad guys. Also they aren’t trying to get their hostages back at all. On oct 7 the IDF was responsible for the MAJORITY of deaths. Look up hannibal directive.
The bad guys are Zionists. Simply put they think they are superior to anyone that’s not Jewish. Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews.
I actually didn’t realize Gaza was a concentration camp.
In 1948, during the Nakba, Israel ethnically cleansed much of Palestine. From that (and a good portion of the ethnic cleansing Israel has done since), many of the people were driven into Gaza.
In 2006, when Israel got kicked out of Gaza due to an uprising, they built a wall around it and restricted the amount of food, fuel, and other items, and banned the gazans from constructing wells, water containers, and other things that would allow the people in Gaza to stay alive longer if Israel cut off food/water supplies.
Thank you for the information. I did not know this.
We learned about the displacement of Palestinians in school and it made me so angry. Great-grandchildren are being punished because their relatives (might) have fought against Israel back then. Aren’t the Israeli politicians realizing they are fueling the conflict by doing this? Well, I suppose that’s just what they want! (Please note that I am only criticizing the Israeli government, not Jews or Israel in general; you have to be very careful to not get accused of antisemitism where I live.)
P.S. I am from Germany, imagine new generations still had to suffer for the crimes the Nazis committed. That would be unforgiving and unjustified. It is our job to make sure this never happens again, though.
Great-grandchildren are being punished because their relatives (might) have fought against Israel back then.
They are punished because they are Palestinian and Israelis are racist occupiers.
Aren’t the Israeli politicians realizing they are fueling the conflict by doing this?
Yes, of course. Israel has a long record of maximum escalation and starting wars and ethnic cleansing. They have official doctrines of killing as many civilians as possible in bombing campaigns rather than engaging with fighters directly.
Israelis are incredibly racist.
P.S. I am from Germany, imagine new generations still had to suffer for the crimes the Nazis committed. That would be unforgiving and unjustified. It is our job to make sure this never happens again, though.
Good on you for having this position despite the racism of your government against solidarity with Palestine!
Great-grandchildren are being punished because their relatives (might) have fought against Israel
Fighting against settler colonists who came and established an apartheid regime is not a crime.
I am only criticizing the Israeli government, […] Israel in general
Israel is a settler colonial project, an Israel that provided equal rights to all Muslims, Christians, and Jews living in its territory would be less related to the current state of Israel than modern South Africa is to Apartheid South Africa.
not Jews
Yes, we agree that it’s antisemitic as fuck to associate Jewishness with Zionism. When Israel is murdering children in public view, implying that Israel represents Jews is just blood libel with extra steps.
Fighting against settler colonists who came and established an apartheid regime is not a crime.
But killing and kidnapping hundreds of innocent civilians is. You have to be clear about that, and also take a nuanced look at the whole conflict. There is no single good or bad side.
Apart from innocent Palestinians and Israelis (good) there are the terrorists (a.k.a. Hamas) who killed and kidnapped hundreds of civilians (bad). Then there is are the settlers, occupying land and terrorizing Palestinians (bad) with the help of the IDF. The Israeli government either looks away or even encourages them (bad). The IDF imprisons children, willingly destroys houses and infrastructure in Gaza and the west bank and executes “precision strikes” in areas of high population while also blocking humanitarian aid (bad).
I support chief investigator Khan’s arrest warrant for Netanjahu, Galant, Deif and Haniyya. Regarding the riots after trying to arrest nine IDF soldiers for abusing a Palestinian prisoner, it is obvious that Israel won’t be interested in a trial or at least not able to arrange one.
[…] an Israel that provided equal rights to all Muslims, Christians, and Jews living in its territory would be less related to the current state of Israel than modern South Africa is to Apartheid South Africa.
That is my dream. Just people living together peacefully, no matter their religion.
But killing and kidnapping hundreds of innocent civilians is. You have to be clear about that
I am being clear.
Would you condemn the Polish resistance because they killed some of the German settlers who came to settle Poland during the 1940s? The South African anti-apartheid movement because they burned some Boers and their collaborators alive? Or would you say the oppressor doesn’t get to judge the morality of the tactics the oppressed use?
Requiring every antizionist to constantly stop to condemn Hamas creates a false equivalency between the people who are inside a concentration camp and the people keeping them there.
That is my dream. Just people living together peacefully, no matter their religion.
This is what existed before Israel, and god willing, it’s what we’ll have after Israel.
I no longer see any point in this discussion. I will not argue with someone who sympathizes with the crimes of Hamas. Have a nice day.
The reality is simple. Their are “bad guys” on both sides. The “good guys” are stuck between them. The degree to which one is badder than the other really shouldn’t matter. Anyone making a living prolonging conflict should just be removed from the gene pool. Ideally by locking large numbers of them in a room with very limited supplies, just enough to fight over.
The ideal situation would be for good guys from both sides to take up on arms and overthrow their own governments to make this cycle stop, but then something will happen that they will come to hate each other again and the cycle will continue.
Israel does genocide. That’s it.
You should look into the history of WHY Hamas formed in the first place. Palestinians have been forcibly relocated and had their land taken since the 40’s. I will say, is there any justification for the destruction and genocide Israel is committing? They’ve destroyed practically ALL infrastructure in Gaza including hospitals, they’ve got snipers shooting kids, targeting UN aid workers. Hamas and hostages are convenient excuses for them to keep doing what they started in the 40’s - killing an entire native population and taking their land.
Hamas are still not the good guys. Every time the conflict calms down, Hamas approval sinks because of their absolute unwillingness to fuck all for their own populace. Most of the money supplied to the gaza strips admin goes into weapons, not into infrastructure for their people.
And to answer your question: ah, fuck no. Israels rightwing shitheads are responsible for never letting the cycle of violence rest. Its to profitable for them.
The good guys are aid workers and Palestinian and Israeli civilians who do not like the conflict.
💯 this. The people doing the kidnapping, murdering, and genocide are the bad guys. The people trying to help are the good guys.
The people violently resisting a genocide are also good guys.
If someone is trying to kill you and everyone who looks like you, shooting back is good.
Shooting back is not only good, but necessary for survival.
Folks throughout these threads would’ve been wringing their hands over occupier civilians killed in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, acting like they just can’t tell who’s right or wrong.
About the Warsaw Uprising, I thought the targets were purely German military, so while a close analogy to how Hamas framed their action, it’s not exact.
The Warsaw Uprising was an open air prison/ghetto break with a wide number of participants, both organized and not. Those facing violence by the people seeking to fight their genociders were not just those in the military. It was anyone in the way or supporting them, per individuals’ wonts.
In addition, Hamas et al (Hamas was not the only organized group participating 10/7) did also focus on military targets while also taking hostages from a wider set. It is important to note that kibbutzim, little settler colonies, are often militarized and fired on them and others.
What sources do you have on German civilian casualties during the Warsaw Uprising?
Direct accounts. Here is one.
https://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/warsaw-uprising.html
Can you please show me a single protest of an Israeli citizen against the war specifically because of the genocide?
Asked n’ answered hahaha
It’s important to separate out the government from the people, especially as it pertains to governments that don’t listen to their population and don’t have overwhelming support. Neither government is good. Most of the civilians from both sides are perfectly decent, though a number of them are misguided.
It’s really impossible to simplify it, but I’ll give it a shot with a quick timeline:
- ~1200 BCE: Several unrelated tribes of people group together to become what we now call Jews or Hebrews or ancient Israelites. How this happened and exactly when is disputed, and is significantly muddied by their own mythology.
- ~600 BCE: The first major expulsion of Jews from areas variously known through time as Palestine, Israel, Jerusalem, and many others.
- ~538 BCE: Jews are allowed to return (until next time).
- ~538 BCE through 1896 CE: For the sake of brevity, let’s just say Jewish people rarely had real control over this land and were consistently persecuted and/or expelled from wherever they were.
- 1896 CE: Theodor Herzl writes “The Jewish State” and births the modern Zionist movement, claiming Jews have a right to Israel primarily on religious basis. He approaches world leaders saying as such and finds little traction.
- 1920: Britain takes control of the area now called Mandatory Palestine.
- 1941-1945: The Holocaust. I assume no additional information needed.
- 1945-1948: The Holocaust gives significant weight to Zionists’ arguments that Jewish people need their own country. As many Jews have already been emigrating there (known as “Aliyah” or Jewish emigration to the promised land) since Zionism took hold, the powers that be (UK and US primarily) already have control of the area (still Mandatory Palestine), and a desire to maintain control of the area, they decide to give most of that land to the Jews and call it Israel.
- 1948: Israel is officially recognized by the United States, its primary backer today. As part of this recognition, Israel and its allies committed what is commonly known as “The Nakba.” A huge number of Palestinians were killed, injured, jailed, or forcibly removed from the area.
- 1948: Arab-Israeli War. The Arab countries unite to fight the new state of Israel. This, as with most wars, is primarily because of power. The don’t want the West to be controlling the region. The Arabs lose, but nobody loses more than Palestine.
- 1948: Palestinian attacks on Israel start. I don’t have anywhere else to put this, but know that the end of the Arab-Israeli War didn’t end Palestinians fighting for their land and independence. They will continue to do so by any means available to them.
- 1956: Suez Crisis. Israel and its backers invade and militarily occupy part of Egypt and take control of the Suez canal because Egypt decided to nationalize it. This war is transparent in its goal for power.
- 1967: Six Day War. Israel invades a variety of areas that it borders, including land owned by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Palestine would be listed as well if it were recognized as a state. They’re successful in only six days. Notable areas you may have heard of that were militarily acquired by Israel at this time are the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights. Israel still retains control over these conquered areas.
- 1973: Yom Kippur War. Arab states attack to try to get back the land lost in the Six Day War. Israeli victory.
- 1978: Camp David Accords. Israel agrees to give some land back in return for being recognized by Egypt as a state. Sedat, the Egyptian leader, would be assassinated in part because of this action.
- 1987–1993: First Intifada. More organized and wide-scale Palestinian insurgency than we’ve seen before. Palestinians are fighting for their independence and their land. The insurgency is suppressed.
- 2000–2005: Second Intifada. Same reasons and result as the first.
- 2006-current: Much like the intifadas, there’s a lot to say here, but for the sake of brevity (lol too late) the Palestinian attacks that started in 1948 continue to this day. Israel intermittently declares various wars with the claim that they’re rooting out terrorists, Hamas, Hezbollah, and more.
This leaves out a lot. It’s just not possible to condense it. But (mostly) off the top of my head, that’s what I’d consider most of the most important bits.
The way I see it, whether or not you think Israel is “the good guys” largely hinges on whether or not you think Jews have a right to the land of Israel, and whether or not you think that claim was executed in a humane way.
I would compare it to the Native Americans - were the Americans of that time period the “good guys”? In my opinion, absolutely not. Were the Native Americans wrong for defending their land? Again, absolutely not. Were they wrong for attacking innocent civilians in retribution (for their land being taken, their own innocent civilians being killed, a genocide in progress)? Maybe, but it’s also understandable that when you’re working from a position of basically zero power against a behemoth, you can’t fight the way the behemoth fights, or you’re going to lose.
The way I see it, the Palestinian people just want a place to live and develop, and nobody’s giving them a way out, so they’re trying anything and everything they can.
Also, approximately 900,000 Jews migrated, fled, or were expelled from Muslim-majority countries throughout Africa and Asia, primarily as a consequence of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and the establishment of the State of Israel.
One minor, but important detail: The First Aliyah began in the 1880s, a decade before Herzl’s work. Land was purchased for settlements, and a few tens of thousands came, mostly from Eastern Europe. Within a couple decades the kibbutz system was established, small socialist communities where it was decided, unfortunately, to try to rely exclusively on Jewish labor and economy. This led to the first significant frictions between the settlers and the Palestinians, setting the stage for our situation today.
Very true! It’s hard to imagine Israel would be the same today without the particular cultural choices those first immigrants made. Thanks for the addition.
You left out the protocol of the elders of zion and the backlash it caused against Jews. It’s fairly important as a catalyst for some of the 20th century shit.
I’m actually okay with that not being included as a critical point in Israeli history. My understanding is it was one piece in a long line of antisemitism, and while it was known by the Nazi party, it was known by the leadership to be fictional and wasn’t used seriously as propaganda by them. That’s not to say it didn’t have any effect, just that I’m not convinced it made much difference when it comes to the creation of Israel as a state.
I’m open to alternative viewpoints if you want to provide evidence or just offer some book titles that might change my mind.
the powers that be (UK and US primarily) already have control of the area (still Mandatory Palestine), and a desire to maintain control of the area, they decide to give most of that land to the Jews and call it Israel.
Israel wasn’t created by the UK or the US (or the UN). Israelis declared the state of Israel themselves after seizing territory in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
The UN did have a plan to create an Israel in 1947, but that didn’t happen, because neither the Jews, the Arabs, nor the UK were on board.
I think this might be a semantic argument - it’s not important to me if we use the words “give” or “create.” Happy to use whatever words you prefer for allies having power and control of an area and ensuring that power and control is transferred to their chosen ally.
British Mandatory Palestine was officially ending May 15, 1948. Israel announced its independence on May 14, 1948. The United States officially recognized Israel as a state 11 minutes after it declared itself a sovereign state. It’s strange to suggest these are coincidences rather than planned action with their allies, but there’s plenty of evidence in addition to this to make it very clear that Israel wouldn’t have stood a chance without the backing of their superpower friends.
lmao 1200 BC
Buddy, Zionism is a European settler colonial project from the 1800s that emerged as a response to European antisemitism but is of course, itself, deeply ethnocentric and racist.
All resistance to the occupation, which has repeatedly engaged in ethnic cleansing, is justified under international law. They have now, for a years engaged in a fast genocide, which makes choosing a side very easy so long as you aren’t yourself deeply racist.
1967: Six Day War. Israel invades a variety of areas that it borders
You’ve made a pretty good summary, but I have one quibble: Egypt, Syria and Jordan were planning to attack Israel. Israel launched pre-emptive strikes.
lmao imagine being this easy to fool
Thank you for the detailed timeline. However, it raises a serious question for me. Am I misreading, or does your timeline show that the Jews were systematically oppressed and dislocated from their home land for about 2400 years? If so, wouldn’t that make it understandable why they’re so hostile to a foreign group that again wants to displace them from their home?
Here’s the issue: who’s home is it? Is it the home of people who haven’t lived there for hundreds of years or the home of the people who currently do? Neither of these two groups had anything to do with what happened previously.
Jews had lived in the area for a very long time even after most were expelled. This was relatively peaceful (though not perfect). The current issues started when settlers came, who were not from there, and purchased farms. They later decided they would only hire Jewish workers, despite Muslims traditionally tending it (which hurt production because the Jewish settlers had no idea how to do so, but production wasn’t the goal). Muslims then fought back as their livelihood was being taken from them. The settlers used militias to attack back and used it as justification to take more.
Those militias became the IDF when Israel formed. Israel still uses this tactic of provoking an attack and then using that as an excuse to use more force to take more territory. This has happened many times now and the current fight is just the latest, but not a new event.
There are no “good guys” but there are victims. Anyone just trying to live their lives is a victim. The bad guys are the ones trying to take this away from others.
As you now know, the Zionist project is one by Europeans who colonized and ethnically cleansed large regions of Palestine in the last 120 years or so. Ethnic supremacist myths about stolen Palestinian homes being on Israeli homelands are unacceptable.
does your timeline show that the Jews were systematically oppressed and dislocated from their home land for about 2400 years?
That’s one interpretation, though I’d disagree with it. I have Jewish heritage - enough that a significant portion of my ancestry was wiped out in the Holocaust, though obviously a few of them were lucky and escaped to the US with the help of a sponsor. I don’t practice Judaism as a religion and don’t really relate much to any of my heritage. Is Israel my homeland? Not at all. The United States is my homeland. Before that, Germany would be my homeland. Before that… well, I’m not sure, but history would suggest it’s highly unlikely it was Israel. I have zero attachment to that land, much like I expect you have zero attachment to the land of your ancestors from millennia ago. (I also have zero attachment to the land of my non-Jewish ancestry. I have no idea what it is from thousands of years ago, but I wouldn’t care if I did.)
Would I and other Jewish people be justified in kicking out Germans, because they spent hundreds of years there? What about the Russians? Poles? The Jewish diaspora has gone all over the place and made just about everything their home. Why should they have claim to land that their great great great great great ancestors once conquered and stole from somebody else?
If so, wouldn’t that make it understandable why they’re so hostile to a foreign group that again wants to displace them from their home?
I would argue Israel wasn’t their home until they moved there over the last hundred or so years. Home isn’t where some of your family lived 3000 years ago. The individuals in question never lived there. Their parents never lived there. Their grandparents never lived there. None of these people had any idea what Israel was even like. Today, there are more Jewish people in the United States than there are in Israel, and they’re happy to call the United States home.
If we’re going to make the argument that people should be allowed to lay claim to land their ancestry owned 3000 years ago, we open up a lot of questions.
First, it’s worth noting that this is also the home of Palestinians. The origins of Palestinians are much less clear than the origins of Jewish people in large part because the Jews have been uniquely good at maintaining their culture, so we have a much better grasp on Jewish people throughout history than we do of Palestinians. But at its core, the fact is Palestinians haven’t ever lived anywhere else. This means they’re also “so hostile to a foreign group that again wants to displace them from their home.”
Second, to be consistent, we’d have to revert a lot of borders to ancient times. Does that mean we should all revert borders to what they were 3000 years ago? Why 3000? Why not 2000? 4000? Regardless, you’re uprooting a lot of people - and you’d have to provide a really good justification for that, and I don’t see it.
Third, even if we agreed the Jews have a right to this land and we should revert to their ancient borders and give them control, that doesn’t mean they have a right to attempt genocide on those living there. The moment they embarked on the Nakba, they should have lost their allies in their mission. Assuming they have a right to the land, they have to humanely displace the people there, ensure they have a new place to live, and give them adequate compensation for the land and the massive inconvenience you’ve caused by uprooting their entire lives. Sort of a “sorry we’re doing this, but we’re trying to make it right.” Instead, they’ve killed millions of people over the decades.
I’m referring to this part of your timeline-
“~600 BCE: The first major expulsion of Jews from areas variously known through time as Palestine, Israel, Jerusalem, and many others. ~538 BCE: Jews are allowed to return (until next time). ~538 BCE through 1896 CE: For the sake of brevity, let’s just say Jewish people rarely had real control over this land and were consistently persecuted and/or expelled from wherever they were.”
Maybe I’m misreading it, but it seems to imply that they were, as a people, born from that land, and systemically were persecuted through the course of around 2400 years.
I think there’s a lot of fuzzyness around the idea of “born from that land.” It’s not like they sprouted out of the earth. As with just about any people, there was a lot of rape and murder of warring tribes until some combination of them stopped doing as much rape and as much murder and somewhat arbitrarily called themselves “one people.” If you want to call that “born from that land,” sure, but their ancestry goes back further than that. We’re all just apes.
- 1896 CE: Theodor Herzl writes “The Jewish State”
- 1897 CE: Theodor Herzl writes “Mauschel”
Herzl believed that there were two types of Jews, Jiden (Yids) and Juden (Jews), and considered any Jew who openly opposed his proposals for a Zionist solution to the Jewish question to be a Mauschel. The article has often been taken, since its publication, to be emblematic of an antisemitic strain of thinking in Zionism, and has been described as an antisemitic rant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl
Due to his Zionist work, he is known in Hebrew as Chozeh HaMedinah (חוֹזֵה הַמְדִינָה), lit. ‘Visionary of the State’. He is specifically mentioned in the Israeli Declaration of Independence and is officially referred to as “the spiritual father of the Jewish State”.
Just like everywhere else, the bad guys are the leaders killing people and creating hate to keep themselves in power, and the good guys are the people who are just trying to live their lives in dignity anr freedom. Both sides have both. You could make an argument that the leaders on one side arr worse because they have more deadly firepower at their disposal, but that seems like a moot point to me. The hate is the problem and the people who need it to stay in power are the bad guys.
If you would not have called Rhodesia or Apartheid South Africa the good guys then you should not consider Israel to be the good guys either.
I don’t think a lot of westerners realize how highly propagandized and pro-colonialist their media is.
The US deemed the African National Congress (ANC, the main group resisting apartheid south africa) a terrorist group just like they do hamas now, and only removed Mandela from the US terrorist watchlist in 2008.
US media is saying all the same things about Palestine’s resistance that they did in the 80s w/ to south african apartheid.
The amount of bias, propaganda, and straight-up misinformation from western media regarding this “conflict” (more like massacre) is truly outrageous.
It’s also worth noting that Mandela founded the ANC’s guerilla branch. Western media today portrays him as a purely non-violent, MLK-like figure, but in reality he was central to the ANC’s decision to begin an armed struggle against apartheid.
It’s almost as if:
During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it.
Where are you getting news, and how often?
It’s really easy. Everybody killing other people? Committing rape and violence? Those are the bad guys. Both sides. The good guys are the innocent victims, the women and children, the ordinary people who have nothing to do with it. Both militaries are equally at fault for being monsters.
You can’t argue that in good faith when one military has so much more resources than the other.
It’s like if a child hits you, then you beat the shit out of him and use the “he started it” excuse.
It’s not just “hitting” when it’s done with explosives and bullets, and the ones doing the killing aren’t children. They’re all bad and all need to be stopped from abusing and slaughtering noncombatants. If you think that’s a hot take, hey congrats, you’ve discovered the thinking that perpetuates the violence.
Identify good and bad based on what people do. Not why they are doing it. Otherwise you’re simply agreeing that the ends justify the means.
Someone kills a noncombatant? Bad. Doesn’t matter why.
By that logic every single fight has been between bad guys. Abolitionists vs. slavers? Sorry buddy, they both killed noncombatants, they’re both just bad guys. Nazis doing genocide vs. partisabs? Sorry buddy, they’re both just bad guys.
There are no perfect fights, perfect armies, perfect struggles for liberation. You will have to accept what it takes to fight oppression or force yourself to a mealy-mouthed sidelines from which you declare everyone that isn’t passive is always a villain.
I think I generally agree with your viewpoint here. This seems to be separate from the original conversation, and more about whether or not war is sometimes necessary, and if it is then you’ve got to step back and look at the larger picture and realize there’s going to be a lot of pain on both sides, the good side and the bad side. I think it’s ok to empathize with that, but probably not ok to say that fighting is never necessary. The same people will then go on to say it’s ok to physically assault modern day Nazis.
I wouldn’t mind punching a Nazi personally. But I also realize war sometimes is necessary, and that it will be a painful process.
Hell yeah normalize punching Nazis. Of course do so when you won’t lose the fight.
Oppressed people are not generally warmongers. They are not whipped up into a frenzy of domination like Americans, Germans, or Nazis. Instead, they fight because they must either flee or resist, and they opt to resist.
One example is that for all the hand-wringing about Hamas, Israel is clearly far more bloodthirsty and accepting of civilian deaths, given how much they target children and hospitals. All the tut-tutting of Hamas comes from pro-Israeli propaganda that hopes the audience will forget these things and instead think about how much more “pure” the resistance should allegedly be. It is directed at those who reside in countries materially abettibg the occupation and genocide so that they do not demand better.
I can be glad that the Union won the U.S. Civil War and and ended slavery yet still consider it to be war crimes that they deliberately attacked civilians as part of Sherman’s March; no logic had been violated there.
According to OP’s logic that makes The Union bad guys, end of thought.
Not necessarily. If that were the case, then peaceful civil rights movements wouldn’t be effective. We can point to things like women’s right to vote to indicate that isn’t the case though. While they’re not as dramatic, peaceful reform movements have a reasonably high success rate, contrasted against all the uprisings and revolts which have been mercilessly crushed throughout history.
Your entire logic is that a side that kills a noncombatant it is bad. This simplistic logic would, necessarily, lead to the absurdities I listed.
Re: the Civil rights movements, they were not, overall, peaceful. There has been a whitewashing of them due to the (decades later) popularity of Dr. King and his compatriots, but the civil right movement spanned decades and included violent resistance.
While they’re not as dramatic, peaceful reform movements have a reasonably high success rate, contrasted against all the uprisings and revolts which have been mercilessly crushed throughout history.
They have nearly always failed and have instead been used to demonstrate the necessity of armed resistance. You’ll note that Dr. King was killed when he focused on what he viewed as the more encompassing injustice of poverty imposed on black people by capitalism.
Well, yes, killing a noncombatant is bad, no question about it. There are other ways to accomplish the goal, from peaceful ways to simply killing actual combatants instead. I know you’re more of a revolutionary, so that kinda undermines your whole thing, but oh well.
Sure, but things like the riots, particularly around race, contributed to a great deal of backlash, and were not exactly the cause of things like the Civil Rights Act. In fact, I’d challenge you to provide historical cases of a leader caving to that sort of violence while they still had their military and police forces to protect them.
Yes, martyrdom is common, assassination is unquestionably a thing that happens in history. If you’re saying his assassination was some conspiracy to preserve capitalism I’d like to see some actual evidence of that, though, from a respected historian.
Almost always fails, though? It’s relatively rarely attempted in any seriousness, but let’s see… Vietnam War, Women’s Suffrage, Civil Rights Act, Prohibition, and that’s just examples from my country. And yes, I know, they were not all exclusively perfectly peaceful. Majority peaceful, though, I don’t think you can logically just unilaterally declare all the positive results were due to the violent aspects, that makes no sense unless you can provide some evidence.
Well, yes, killing a noncombatant is bad, no question about it.
I think there are plenty of “noncombatants” that can be killed without it being bad. How about concentration camp guards? Or the wardens? How about a President guilty of war crimes and genocide? What about the person that shuts off the water supply to a vulnerable population, killing thousands? I will shed no tears for those people if those they oppressed rise up against them with decisive violence.
Or for one more controversial: what level of violence is acceptable against settlers? Their comfort and security on stolen land is the material basis for the settler project. Making them unsafe undermines this more thoroughly than most other violence. Several groups of native Americans recognized this while their people were genocided and it did have the intended impact right up until the genocidal US government deployed overwhelming forces. When the oppressor seeks genocide, what should really be off-limits? Why the tut-tutting of the oppressed when they face such inhumanity and existential threats?
There are other ways to accomplish the goal, from peaceful ways to simply killing actual combatants instead.
If there is a peaceful way, the Palestinians have already tried it. They tried it in a very obvious way just a few years ago with the Great March of Return. Did it work? What did Israel do in response? What impact did this have on the freedom fighters in the resistance?
Why are you trying to dictate the terms of others’ freedom when they face genocide and occupation? Does your country materially support the occupation? Focus on disrupting that instead.
I know you’re more of a revolutionary, so that kinda undermines your whole thing, but oh well.
Generally speaking it is a bad idea for liberals to guess what socialists want or think. I have yet to meet one that has guessed correctly with any consistency.
Sure, but things like the riots, particularly around race, contributed to a great deal of backlash, and were not exactly the cause of things like the Civil Rights Act.
First, peaceful marches got very similar backlash. Dr. King was criticized with the exact same milquetoast, “we agree with his ideas but not his methods” treatment by liberals and he was majority unpopular among white people for his entire life.
Second, violent actions, as defined by critics, formed the basis for much of the civil rights fight and forwarded it. The seizure and destruction of property, the vigilante justice against lynchers, the hounding of segregationist bosses, and riots were all highly influential. Thr best-organized groups carried rifles. Dr. King has been appropriated by liberals, particularly white liberals, in order to tell an ahistorical story about the importance of nonviooent resistance, that liberty can have its cake and eat it too, to be free of the blrmish of violence while securing its goals. Of course, they tend to stop telling the story when King began to focus on capitalism and its use of structural marginalization to induce poverty on black people and was killed shortly after. Nobody can seriously argue that the civil rights movement simply succeeded, no one can go to the black ghettos and say this with a straight face. It was mollified with partial legalization reforms while the major engine of oppression chugged right along, ensuring continued racialized poverty, policing, and society at large.
In fact, I’d challenge you to provide historical cases of a leader caving to that sort of violence while they still had their military and police forces to protect them.
Every revolution and, most closely ties to the topic of this post, the victory of the ANC guerillas over the apartheid South African government.
Yes, martyrdom is common, assassination is unquestionably a thing that happens in history. If you’re saying his assassination was some conspiracy to preserve capitalism I’d like to see some actual evidence of that, though, from a respected historian.
It is well-known that black civil rights leaders were frequently assassinated and that the FBI led the charge in harassing and threatening them and certainly did not stop at Dr. King. Fred Hampton is a well-known example. Though government employees were hardly the only ones killing and they often worked with civilian assets or simply sat back and let white supremacists do the job. The interest of the state in doing so was to undermine the civil rights movement itself and to wrap it up in its red scare tactics, both in the service of capitalism, namely racialized capitalism. Though it is not only the state with such interests - businesses, particularly those owned by racist whites, have every incentive to support these violences, and had often been the sponsors of lynchings.
Re: Dr. King specifically, his family has always maintained that he was killed in a conspiratorial manner. There is doubt about this narrative, but it is useful to follow the logic and constellation of government infiltrators of King’s organization and connections to organized crime. But even withiut that, the original confession of the officially accused and convicted was by someone looking to get paid a racist bounty that had been placed on King’s head.
Almost always fails, though? It’s relatively rarely attempted in any seriousness, but let’s see… Vietnam War
Was ended primarily by the Vietnamese, namely by North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. The US domestic side, which was not entirely nonviolent, just limited the capacity to wage war and was dramatically secondary.
Women’s Suffrage
Notoriously involved violence.
Civil Rights Act
Already discussed. Incomplete and not separable from violent struggle.
Prohibition
Which part of it? Teatotalers were often violent leading up to it and the period of prohibition was characterized by violent organized crime. Prohibition was itself ended mostly because capitalists wanted to make money legally again and to crowd out the mob. The primary sponsors of repealing prohibition were the Rockefelllers and du Pont brothers, including various “grassroots” organizations. The whole thingis hardly a peaceful people’s campaign against an oppressor.
A concentration camp guard is a combatant. They are armed and keeping you there with violence, right? Responding with violence to violence is pretty widely regarded as acceptable, outside of pacifist movements. Your more controversial question is what we’re really talking about. I think your focus on the “material basis” for their actions is where this goes wrong, as it ignores their ideology, their psychology. This is why such resistance movements fail, humans are not fundamentally logical. Even a total undermining of their peace and security simply draws that overwhelming response you mentioned, as we are seeing evidence of right now. While the nonviolent methods were not working very well, they were working better than this. What works is what’s most important, that’s why I’m dictating right and wrong to others quest for freedom. Even a full cutoff of all foreign weapons to Israel would not resolve the famine.
Any actual sourcing for this primacy of violence in peaceful protest movements or King’s assassination being to preserve capitalism? It seems to me you are simply trying to give all the credit to the few, while ignoring the contributions of the many, because it suits you.
“Every revolution” sure is convenient, when 99% fail. The ANC did not “defeat” South Africa, it was international pressure that ended Apartheid.
On the note of government surveillance and oppression of the civil rights movement, I agree.
Regarding Vietnam, the US could have kept fighting far longer if there was will for it. The reason there was not will for it was domestic opposition.
Again, you’re simply giving all the credit to the violent while ignoring the hard work of the masses in these movements. This is disingenuous.
A concentration camp guard is a combatant. They are armed and keeping you there with violence, right?
Kibbutzim near Gaza are armed occupation groups set up for the long term. Violence against those in kibbutzim are the only credible accusations of violence against “civilians” on Oct 7. Is an open air prison guard less of one when they live nearby? What if they don’t go in the prison but instead are there to shoot you if you break out? What if they knowingly live on your stolen land while you live in a ghetto?
Responding with violence to violence is pretty widely regarded as acceptable, outside of pacifist movements. Your more controversial question is what we’re really talking about. I think your focus on the “material basis” for their actions is where this goes wrong, as it ignores their ideology, their psychology. This is why such resistance movements fail, humans are not fundamentally logical.
That’s a lot of unjustified generalizations when we are talking about something specific.
Even a total undermining of their peace and security simply draws that overwhelming response you mentioned, as we are seeing evidence of right now.
And Israel is now likely the weakest it has ever been while the world has awoken to their crimes. A slow genocide is not better than a fast one, but actions one that draws the genocider into an existential crisis have strategic value.
While the nonviolent methods were not working very well, they were working better than this.
You are being vague again. Working well for what? What is the goal? What outcomes are on the table? Nonviolent methods achieved one thing: a recognition that they could not achieve their intended purpose of inciting international support for their cause and that the Zionist entity will not even tolerate peaceful marches, so militarized resistance is necessary. I would bet you did jack shit in response to the Great March of Return, whereas this at least has your attention.
What works is what’s most important, that’s why I’m dictating right and wrong to others quest for freedom. Even a full cutoff of all foreign weapons to Israel would not resolve the famine.
Yes it would because the blockade would collapse and so would the ability to target aid workers.
Any actual sourcing for this primacy of violence in peaceful protest movements or King’s assassination being to preserve capitalism? It seems to me you are simply trying to give all the credit to the few, while ignoring the contributions of the many, because it suits you.
I have provided enough information for a curious person to inform themselves. I can’t make you curious and I cannot read for you, nor will I be doing errands for you in that regard. You can thank me for giving you this information when you have clearly never made any attempts to learn this topic and continue to be resistant to self-education before sharing your opinions, which are really just the things you see on children’s programming.
“Every revolution” sure is convenient, when 99% fail.
A statistic you pulled from your ass that does not address the fact that I accurately answered your question. Just a deflection. Do you see why I am not taking time to help you with reading materials? You are not acting in good faith.
The ANC did not “defeat” South Africa, it was international pressure that ended Apartheid.
Absolutely incorrect. Boycotts and sanctions helped but it was resistance like the ANC that led the charge and, for example, created the boycott movements in the first place. Rather than acknowledge basic facts you are now just making things up and asserting them to be true. It was black south Africans and their white allies engaging in direct action that brought the country to its knees and agitated for all of this. White South Africa was dependent on black South Afrucan labor.
Regarding Vietnam, the US could have kept fighting far longer if there was will for it. The reason there was not will for it was domestic opposition.
Because the imperialist war crybabies weren’t winning and came home to get sympathy for their PTSD and war crimes. Vietnam set itself up for long-term guerilla warfare that they knew could outlast Americans’ willpower. It is frankly disgusting to give Americans credit for the Vietnamese kicking their shit in. Give credit where credit is due and stop feeding this implicit racism that non-white resistance groups didn’t achieve what they did.
Again, you’re simply giving all the credit to the violent while ignoring the hard work of the masses in these movements.
Giving all credit to, say, the people successfully waging guerilla warfare to tire out their occupiers? In a war? Yes of course I will give them virtually all of the credit, as they did nearly all of the work to efficaciously achieve their desired ends.
You are simply incorrect in your understanding of history and believe in fairy takes that you refuse to question, even when presented with the obvious. You are not in a position to be correctly humble and actually learn this history, presumably because you just want to keep dictating the terms of others’ freedom and wringing your hands like Dr. King’s White moderate.
This is disingenuous.
This is an interesting accusation given your dithering and deflection around clear cut examples.
Okay:
In 1948, just after WWII, the UK decided to carve a chunk out of Palestine and create a new state there, called Israel - as a Jewish homeland that would take all the refugees that the rest of Europe didn’t want to deal with.
Palestine was not happy about this - the land was taken without their consent, a great chunk of their country just taken from them by decree, backed up by a still highly militarized Europe.
Over the following decades, Palestine tried several times to take their country back, and each time got slapped down (since Israel had vast backing from UK/USA/Europe, both from postwar guilt and because Israel had a lot of strategic value as a platform from which to project military power in the middle east).
Cut to today, and Israel has expanded to take virtually the entire area, apart from some tiny scattered patches of land, and the Gaza strip - a strip of land 40km by 10km, containing most of the Palestinian population, blockaded by sea and land by the Israeli military.
Israel also runs an apartheid regime very similar to the old South African one - Palestinians have very few human or civil rights, generally get no protection from the Israeli police or military, while being treated as hostile outsiders that can be assaulted or have their land ‘settled’ at will by Israelis.
It has been decades since Palestine has had any kind of organised military, and it’s also not recognised as its own country by most of the world, so there’s virtually no way for it to push back, or to call on assistance.
In a situation like that, the only recourse is guerilla warfare, which often descends into (and is exploited by bad actors as) terrorist attacks. It’s a damn good way to farm martyrs, and this hugely serves Israel’s ends, since it can keep pointing to terrorim as justification for their ongoing oppression. Israel in fact provided a great deal of ongoing funding for Hamas, while blocking more moderate groups.
Back in October, a small organised group raided across the border from Gaza into Israel, killing about 1200 people and taking a couple of hundred hostages.
In response, Israel has killed over 40,000 Palestinans in Gaza - mainly women and children - systematically destroying the city’s infrastructure, water, power, food production and distribution, hospitals, universities and schools, bombing refugee camps and destroying the majority of all housing and shelter in the area. It’s also bombing humanitarian aid convoys, preventing food and medicine from reaching the people there. The death toll is expected to reach many hundreds of thousands, since people are already starving and there is no medical care available.
The rest of the world is wringing their hands about the ‘regrettable’ loss of life, while continuing to sell Israel all the weapons and bombs it needs to continue the genocide.
Fuck Israel.
In 1948, just after WWII, the UK decided to carve a chunk out of Palestine and create a new state there, called Israel - as a Jewish homeland that would take all the refugees that the rest of Europe didn’t want to deal with
That’s not what happened.
Firstly, the Balfour Declaration was in 1917, during World War I.
Secondly, Britain never partitioned the land. I think you’re getting confused with the UN’s partition plan, which was never implemented.
That’s a very polite way to explain Israeli savagery.
Mandatory Palestine was long before 1948. Zionist settlers were doing terrorism on the indigenous Palestinians for decades by 1948. And with British support.
The civilians.
If you ignore the 80 years of oppression that preceded the Hamas attacks on Israel last year, the Israeli response has been one of genocidal intent. From indiscriminate bombings to cutting off supplies of food, water and other aid. They have directly killed at least 40k people, and likely many more from starvation and preventable diseases.
This could have been easily avoided by a simple prisoner swap. Israel has thousands of Palestinians detained without charge, and Hamas wanted to free them.
The 40k number has been steady since early this year. This is not because Israel stopped its mass murder campaign. Instead, it is because they have destroyed the reporting apparatus itself, killing healthcare workers and bureaucrats in a civilian-targeted ethnic cleansing campaign. There is nobody there to do the counts. The hospitals are largely bombed out. Israel targets all aid workers; there is nobody from international orgs to do the counts.
