Conservative posters in this forum seem to fundamentally not understand the Israel-Palestine conflict, and many are on the side of evil as a result of their ignorance.
The best analogy I can draw your attention to, is early colonization of the US and the pioneer interactions with native Americans. The settlers in the US bought land, stole land, killed the natives, got raided by the natives, pushed the natives into Reservations, and arguably in some instances did genocide of the natives.
The situation in Israel-Palestine, of a massive number of Jews moving to the area where Palestinians were living, and taking land from the Palestinians already living there, is having much the same results.
The people who were previously living in the area are upset at the new immigrants seizing their land and pushing them off it. They're upset at the new immigrants killing them. They've got justified grievances. So groups of them fight back, in numerous kinds of ways. It's a parallel situation between the early US pioneers, and the current Israeli colonization.
The October 6th attack on Israel by the Palestinians should be understood in much the same way a band of horse-riding "Indian Braves" attacking a pioneer settlement in the early US should be understood.
Using that analogy, I encourage conservatives to understand why the following types of comments about the situation betray a fundamental lack of understanding. Imagine saying these sorts of things about the US natives attacking the pioneers:
Saying anything of the sort would just reveal that you didn't understand the situation at all in early America. I see conservatives on this board revealing they don't understand the situation in Israel-Palestine when they say similar things about the current conflict there.
Both conflicts are about one group stealing another group's land, pushing them into Reservations, and killing them. And the people who are being victimized, fighting back.
Some other types of comments I see that are fundamentally not relevant to the conflict, and reveal a basic lack of understanding:
Such statements are simply not relevant to the overall conflict between the settlers and the natives. The conflict is about stolen land and displaced people, not a referendum on which group happens to have the more pleasant government.
Similarly, a couple of statements that are not very helpful:
Using terror to fight back, is indeed "terrorism". But it doesn't mean those doing it didn't have justified grievances. It's 100% rational to think those Braves who attacked the settlement did a bad thing, while also thinking that the pioneers who stole the land and built the settlement there in the first place did a bad thing. If the pioneers launch a reprisal attack on the nearby native village and butcher women and children in the attack, it's rational to think that's the pioneers doing a bad thing.
Such statements either call for genocide (and thus are evil), or are foolish because the natives are always going to be able to fight back and its not possible to remove their ability to do so. In fact, the more you attack them, the more you motivate them to fight back, so suggesting the way to stop them fighting back ever again is to attack them hard, is silly.
In short, the situation in Israel-Palestine boils down to immigrants stealing people's land, displacing them, killing them, and the reprisal attacks that has caused. Just as the friction between the US settlers and native Americans did.
The current situation has been the equivalent of the "Indian Braves" attacking a pioneer village due to their anger at past wrongs done to them by the pioneers, and the pioneers responding with a genocide of the native Americans in which they slaughter hundreds of times the number the natives had killed. To which much of the world is now responding: "Genocide is bad, don't do that."
So to those conservatives here, who are weighing in on the situation out of ignorance I plead: Think twice before getting out your pom-poms and cheerleading for genocide. Please don't be actively atrociously evil.
The Palestinian attack on Israel justified a response, but it doesn't justify the response it has gotten.
You can, in the longer conflict over the decades, choose to side with the pioneer immigrants over the natives if you want. Though I think you would be wrong to do so, because I generally think stealing people's land, shoving them into Reservations, and killing them, is morally wrong. And I think such people have an entirely morally justified right to fight back against their oppressors in self-defence. But if you are going to side with the immigrants over the natives in the longer conflict over the decades, I would ask that you at least try to understand the conflict. It's a conflict about stolen land, and displaced and wronged people, it's not primarily a conflict over race or religion, and when I see posters here talking in racial or religious terms I realize they fundamentally don't understand the situation.
The best analogy I can draw your attention to, is early colonization of the US and the pioneer interactions with native Americans. The settlers in the US bought land, stole land, killed the natives, got raided by the natives, pushed the natives into Reservations, and arguably in some instances did genocide of the natives.
The situation in Israel-Palestine, of a massive number of Jews moving to the area where Palestinians were living, and taking land from the Palestinians already living there, is having much the same results.
The people who were previously living in the area are upset at the new immigrants seizing their land and pushing them off it. They're upset at the new immigrants killing them. They've got justified grievances. So groups of them fight back, in numerous kinds of ways. It's a parallel situation between the early US pioneers, and the current Israeli colonization.
The October 6th attack on Israel by the Palestinians should be understood in much the same way a band of horse-riding "Indian Braves" attacking a pioneer settlement in the early US should be understood.
Using that analogy, I encourage conservatives to understand why the following types of comments about the situation betray a fundamental lack of understanding. Imagine saying these sorts of things about the US natives attacking the pioneers:
"They're just doing it because they hate Christianity. It's all about religion. The native Americans just hate Christianity and want to kill Christians."
"It's all about race, they just want to kill whites all around the world because they hate the white race. People in Britain are in danger from these savages who want to kill whites."
"They're just fundamentally bad people, they just love doing bad things because they're bad people. Killing, rape, etc they're just doing it because they're bad people and love to do bad things."
"It's all about race, they just want to kill whites all around the world because they hate the white race. People in Britain are in danger from these savages who want to kill whites."
"They're just fundamentally bad people, they just love doing bad things because they're bad people. Killing, rape, etc they're just doing it because they're bad people and love to do bad things."
Saying anything of the sort would just reveal that you didn't understand the situation at all in early America. I see conservatives on this board revealing they don't understand the situation in Israel-Palestine when they say similar things about the current conflict there.
Both conflicts are about one group stealing another group's land, pushing them into Reservations, and killing them. And the people who are being victimized, fighting back.
Some other types of comments I see that are fundamentally not relevant to the conflict, and reveal a basic lack of understanding:
"The pioneers have a democratic government, the natives don't have a democratic government."
"The government of the pioneers is nicer towards its own people overall, than the government of the natives is to its own people."
"The government of the pioneers is nicer towards its own people overall, than the government of the natives is to its own people."
Similarly, a couple of statements that are not very helpful:
"The Braves attacking the pioneer settlements are Terrorists."
"The Settlers should end the violence by destroying the natives so thoroughly that they'll never ever be able to launch any attack on the settlers again."
In short, the situation in Israel-Palestine boils down to immigrants stealing people's land, displacing them, killing them, and the reprisal attacks that has caused. Just as the friction between the US settlers and native Americans did.
The current situation has been the equivalent of the "Indian Braves" attacking a pioneer village due to their anger at past wrongs done to them by the pioneers, and the pioneers responding with a genocide of the native Americans in which they slaughter hundreds of times the number the natives had killed. To which much of the world is now responding: "Genocide is bad, don't do that."
So to those conservatives here, who are weighing in on the situation out of ignorance I plead: Think twice before getting out your pom-poms and cheerleading for genocide. Please don't be actively atrociously evil.
The Palestinian attack on Israel justified a response, but it doesn't justify the response it has gotten.
You can, in the longer conflict over the decades, choose to side with the pioneer immigrants over the natives if you want. Though I think you would be wrong to do so, because I generally think stealing people's land, shoving them into Reservations, and killing them, is morally wrong. And I think such people have an entirely morally justified right to fight back against their oppressors in self-defence. But if you are going to side with the immigrants over the natives in the longer conflict over the decades, I would ask that you at least try to understand the conflict. It's a conflict about stolen land, and displaced and wronged people, it's not primarily a conflict over race or religion, and when I see posters here talking in racial or religious terms I realize they fundamentally don't understand the situation.
Comment