The presupposition here being that Israel has a right to defense and that the poor people being occupied, living under apartheid, being slaughtered and displaced should possess no such right to resist, has been a hallmark of zionist propaganda for ages now.

It's not aging particularly well.

▲

bawolff an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Its pretty well established in international law and the UN charter that all countries have a right to self-defense. Given this is a purely defensive weapon, i can't imagine what reasonable objection anyone could have to it.

	▲	karim79 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Israel is an occupier. This isn't symmetrical warfare. Israel won't let food into Gaza in reasonable quantities. It has restricted basic things like tent poles and just about any commodity which humans anywhere else in the world would have the luxury of being able to take for granted. All in violation of international law - that which has lost all meaning in the last three or so years.

▲

nsoonhui an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is an astonishing revisionist take on the reality on the ground.

Israel unilaterally disengaged from GAZA in 2005 and pulling out generations of Jewish settlement in the process. By 2006 GAZA has zero Jews, and 2007 Gazans elected HAMAS who fired rockets at Israel because they want to free Palestine from the river to the sea, AKA eliminate Israel. October 7 attack is a culmination of that, and between then and now, HAMAS didn't forget to build their military base in the mix of civilians and using civilian targets as shield. So that they can blame Israel for every single Palestinians death, including the death cause by their own firing.

The situation in west Bank is qualitatively the same.

No, protecting your people from terrorist is not apartheid, and Israel has no interest to build iron beam and/or build wall--which the west misinterprete as apartheid-- if the neighbors had no intention to eliminate them.

▲

whatshisface an hour ago | parent [-]

The issue with that type of reasoning is that if you swapped the parties the sentences would be the same. "Palestine removed generations of settlements from Israel, but was forced to attack because Israel wanted to wipe them out." You need to think in terms of principles that can apply equally to everybody.

	▲	coryrc an hour ago \| parent [-]
		There are 2 million muslims living in Israel. There are zero Jews in Gaza -- not even just living ones, they had to remove the long-buried dead ones too.

▲

woodruffw 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think Israel has a right to defense qua state and Palestinians have a right to resist qua subjects of unjust rule. These aren’t really contradictory positions, and both are pretty standard from a “this is what the UN says” ground truth[1][2].

(This is distinct from a state’s “right to exist,” which is nonsense. But once a state does exist, it has the right to defend itself by definition.)

[1]: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-7

[2]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assemb...

▲

2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

whatshisface an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

If they both have a right to kill each other, does the other really have a right to defense? Making it complicated introduces legalistic flaws and distracts everyone from actually fixing it by doing something simple, like tying sanctions to murders of civillians.

	▲	woodruffw an hour ago \| parent [-]
		They don’t both have a right to kill each other! Both “defense” and “resistance” (w/r/t the goal of self determination) have precise bounds; not all forms of warfare or violence are considered justifiable under either. Much of what Israel has done in the current conflict goes well beyond a charitable read of its right to defense, but this doesn’t imply that all defense adaptations are illegitimate.

▲

whatshisface 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think everyone (myself included) has a right to actual self-defense, just not the false version we've been seeing.

Here's my peace plan: Blow up or starve kids on the other side +1 sanctions. Intercept a drone or rocket +0 sanctions. Say you're sorry and reduce arms by 10% -1 sanctions.

If the US alone did this they'd stop with all the murders in days to weeks.

Of course the state of affairs where random online commenters can think of better answers than the individuals in charge is only due to a lack of a desire for peace at high levels! There is nothing complicated about it at all.

▲

xenospn 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

karim79 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Zionism is not a race. The conflation police have once again been informed.

	▲	xenospn an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Nice dog whistle you got there