The governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran appeared to blame Israel for its escalating conflict with Hamas on Saturday. The Palestinian militant group launched a mass attack on Israeli forces …
The Israel/Palestine situation feels a lot like the situation between Native Americans and European settlers. You can’t move into an already occupied place and try to dominate or displace the native inhabitants without expecting violent resistance. (And go figure the British are largely to blame for this too).
With Israel and Palestine it is hard to say one side of the other is totally on the wrong and the other is totally in the right because they are killing each other. With native Americans, it is possible to say Native Americans are 100% in the right.
what makes you say the palestine struggle is any different than that of natives or colonized people anywhere in the world (be it Haiti, North Africa, South Africa).
they are all a colonized people experiencing the same struggle of oppression, with no ability to move freely or exercise any sovereignty.
I was specifically talking about North American natives who haven’t had any battles against their occupiers in more than a century. I would argue that continued fighting would have led to their extermination and by ceasing killing they were able to claw back some of their sovereignty and rights.
I understand that in an asymmetric war, the underdogs may need to act immorally to ensure their own survival. At the same time, I find it hard to stomach the intentional targeting of noncombatants.
Stop ignoring history
Jews were living on that territory for thousands of years, unlike Europeans un America. You are conveniently ignoring facts which would immediately render your analogy completely bogus.
Case A: population X came to a new land and killed almost all of population Y which lived there before.
Case B: population X came back to their homeland, got attacked by population Y, won the war, didn’t not kill population Y, regularly tried to establish truce with population Y which continues to refuse the population X’s right to exist.
Their homeland? It wasn’t their homeland for hundreds of years. The Zionist movement displaced people already living there who had nothing to do with a conflict that occurred hundreds of years prior. They didn’t kill the Palestinians outright but they sure as hell did a good job of systematically stripping them of their rights to exist.
Their stated goal from the beginning was to invade and establish a religious state where people were already living similar to what Europeans did when they colonized the Americas.
The Israel/Palestine situation feels a lot like the situation between Native Americans and European settlers. You can’t move into an already occupied place and try to dominate or displace the native inhabitants without expecting violent resistance. (And go figure the British are largely to blame for this too).
yes, and fwiw this is still very much ONGOING for native americans today
Absolutely. And the Native Americans stopped killing the settlers.
what’s your point?
With Israel and Palestine it is hard to say one side of the other is totally on the wrong and the other is totally in the right because they are killing each other. With native Americans, it is possible to say Native Americans are 100% in the right.
what makes you say the palestine struggle is any different than that of natives or colonized people anywhere in the world (be it Haiti, North Africa, South Africa).
they are all a colonized people experiencing the same struggle of oppression, with no ability to move freely or exercise any sovereignty.
I was specifically talking about North American natives who haven’t had any battles against their occupiers in more than a century. I would argue that continued fighting would have led to their extermination and by ceasing killing they were able to claw back some of their sovereignty and rights.
I understand that in an asymmetric war, the underdogs may need to act immorally to ensure their own survival. At the same time, I find it hard to stomach the intentional targeting of noncombatants.
Stop ignoring history Jews were living on that territory for thousands of years, unlike Europeans un America. You are conveniently ignoring facts which would immediately render your analogy completely bogus.
And the native Americans weren’t? You’re the one ignoring history or intentionally misunderstanding the analogy.
Case A: population X came to a new land and killed almost all of population Y which lived there before.
Case B: population X came back to their homeland, got attacked by population Y, won the war, didn’t not kill population Y, regularly tried to establish truce with population Y which continues to refuse the population X’s right to exist.
Their homeland? It wasn’t their homeland for hundreds of years. The Zionist movement displaced people already living there who had nothing to do with a conflict that occurred hundreds of years prior. They didn’t kill the Palestinians outright but they sure as hell did a good job of systematically stripping them of their rights to exist.
Their stated goal from the beginning was to invade and establish a religious state where people were already living similar to what Europeans did when they colonized the Americas.