Its not a war its a genocide.
Calling it a war is like saying the Holocaust was a war
what’s there to debate? it’s a fucking genocide. israel is the bad guy, alongside the usa.
I assumed NAZA was a clever acronym for North American Zionist Alliance, also sounds like NASA and… That other word.
The “war” in Gaza. Everyone knows it’s not a war. We all see it. Some people use language to try to shape public perception, but there is no denying the truth of the matter.
As Norman Finkelstein said, the moment you say it’s a war Israel has won.
The documentary will be streaming for free on theguardian.com in November
Ah yes the extremely settled debate of Palestine
A war is between two armed forces. Gaza is a genocide - a war crime.
There is also a peace treaty which Israel simply ignores
At the risk of being downvoted to hell, none of what you said is necessarily exlusive towards the other. You can have a war between two countries with armed forces that could both be commiting genocide upon eachother or another people and commit even another entirely different war crime.
Hell war crimes are very diverse in intensity from each other. And I could be wrong here, I think genocide is technically not a war crime, but a crime against humanity.
Reigniting? It hasn’t stopped even a little.
Democrats threw an election in their effort to prevent Israel from being accountable for their actions. And everything about our current experience is defined by that decision. Global fascism was allowed to persist so that Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden primary donors could continue the extermination of the native populations of the holy land. We’ll live in the shadow of those decisions for decades, if not centur, just like the period preceding it was defined largely by the defeat of Nazi Germany in WWII.
Don’t do the zionist work for them by limiting your criticism to just the rational people who should have stopped this.
WW2 was started by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, not Neville Chamberlain.
Removed by mod
That’s all fine and good, but singling out liberals this way rhetorically absolves the actual fascists
Chamberlain was absolutely to blame for his weak actions , and the German libs were accountable for theirs, but so were the Nazis.
Purity testing and leftist infighting is the geo-political equivalent of blaming a girl’s outfit for her rape, instead of the rapists. It’s like going to a man who was stabbed and mocking his cowardly friend instead of providing first aid or chasing off his attacker.
Criticism of the US Democratic party has absolutely nothing to do with leftist infighting. The mere implication is a favor to those looking to move the overton window as far to the right as possible.
We donʻt end up in a position where fascists are able to come to power without liberals paving the runway. And its what’s happening. Trump doesnʻt come to power if not for the liberal tendencies of Obama. Their failure to hold the banks accountable. Their refusal to bailout homeowners instead. Trump doesnʻt come to power when the preferred candidate of the people isnʻt being sabotaged by the anti-democratic tendencies of the Democratic party. Trump gets a mulligan in 2024 because the Democrats held yet another coronation and yet again ran to the right of their voters when their voters had made it clear as day that they wouldnʻt be voting for a pro-genocide candidate.
You are doing the thing liberals do to absolve themselves of accountability. And its a precise component of the song and dance that liberals use to simultaneously empower fascists but also absolve themselves of sin. Trump doesnʻt come to power at all in a context where Democrats take the task of delivering for their constituents seriously. Trump doesnʻt exist if not for the perpetual failure and the permanently apologetic state of the American Liberal.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
WW2 was started by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, not Neville Chamberlain.
WW2 was started by Tojo and the Imperial Japanese, with the invasion of Manchuria in 1931.
Them too, but that’s really is a distinction without a difference. Thank you for pushing back on eurocentrism.
(I mean, unless you’re claiming Germany [and Italy] started the war in Europe in direct respone to their ally’s invasion?)
I mean, if you want to get deep into the historical back-catalog, a lot of what Germany was doing on their Eastern front had been encouraged by anti-communists in the West. Hitler was encouraged by antisemitic fanatics like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh in the US and Henry Hamilton Beamish and Lord Halifax in the UK. He received enormous private support and subsequent overseas investment in his Fascist party and state war machine from western investors, largely in an effort to contain Eastern European Soviet organizations.
The British spent the entire 1930s claiming that Britain and Nazi Germany will be a bulwark against communism. They signed three pacts with Hitler which were all directly against the Soviet Union: the Four Powers Pact meant to exclude and isolate the Soviets, the Naval Agreement meant Germany could have a navy up 35% of the British navy meaning it wouldn’t threaten British empire but every country on the Baltic sea… i.e. the Soviet Union, and finally the Munich Betrayal which was understood to be a gesture of a “free hand” (British diplomat’s words not mine) for Hitler to go east.
And we’d be foolish to confine the fascist sentiment entirely to Central Europe.
I was in the East End of London (a working-class quarter) yesterday and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for ‘bread! bread!’ and on my way home I pondered over the scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism… My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem, i.e., in order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced in the factories and mines. The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists.
~ Cecil John Rhodes, British mining magnate, Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, and founder of Rhodesia
The only real difference between someone like Rhodes and Hitler was Hitler waged this violence against Europeans for his Lebensraum, while Rhodes turned his attention to South Africa.
deleted by creator
You think the Democratic establishment are rational? They’re less likely to foam at the mouth, but they’re about as amoral and sociopathic in pursuit of their goals as their opponents.
My preference is to treat everyone as people, and hold them responsible for their own actions or inactions instead of shifting the blame to somebody else.
So like an opposition party that refuses to oppose and when given the chance to meaningfully change course largely just… doesn’t? That sort of accountability?
Republicans are bastards, who knew. Democrats, also largely self-serving bastards who people desperately want to be better because they know the Republicans are incapable.
That’s a mighty inconvenient thing to point out to someone who’d rather the GOP wins, bucko.
deleted by creator
