U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says the United States and its allies should not support a cease-fire or peace talks to end the war in Ukraine until Kyiv gains strength and can negotiate on its own terms. Blinken said in Finland on Friday that heeding calls from Russia and others for negotiations now would result in a false “Potemkin peace” that wouldn’t secure Ukraine’s sovereignty and or enhance European security. He argued that a cease-fire allowing Russian President Vladimir Putin “to consolidate control over the territory he has seized, and rest, rearm, and re-attack" would not bring "a just and lasting peace.” Kyiv has given confusing signals about whether a counteroffensive is coming or already underway.
“We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression,” Blinken said in a speech in Finland, which recently became NATO’s newest member and shares a long border with Russia.
Why does any of that matter? Why does any of that make it okay to displace the people who currently live in a place? It’s their homeland, too. They have at least as much a right to it as Israelis.
Shit, I’m for landback for indigenous Americans, and even I don’t think non-indigenous people should be kicked off the land they currently live on and relocated. And Native Americans have a much more recent claim to American land than Israelis do to Palestine.
Why does the fact that Jews have not been safe in any society on the planet in the past 2000 years matter? Why does it matter that they were forced off the land? Why does it matter that this bothered us and we’ve been demonstrably hoping and trying to return for the past two millenia? Because if any of those weren’t true I might cede that in some capacity we gave lost our claim to it. However the fact remains that we were forcibly dispossessed of our land and have a right to go back. Of course not at the expense of entirely uprooting those who moved in after us but enough that they and we really should share the land nicely.
If I could ask my own question in return I’d ask why recency of claim matters more than any of the factors I mentioned above. And for the record I agree that native Americans should have far more land rights than they do today. But at the very least they can dwell in a portion of their homeland without the leaders of the rest of those who reside who openly calling for their complete removal and/or extermination and that’s more than can be said for today’s Jews in Israel.
And none of that matters even one single iota to a Palestinian child who’s just been shot in the chest. Go ahead, go up to a grieving Palestinian family and tell them, “Well, I’m oppressed too.” So what? So fucking what? Having been displaced and oppressed doesn’t magically make it okay for you to turn around and do the same thing to others.
I don’t have a problem with Jews living in Palestine if they don’t displace the Palestinians. But that’s exactly what they’re doing. Jews, like anyone else, should be free to live absolutely anywhere on Earth without fear. But they have no right to inflict terror on others. No amount of oppression could possibly justify that.
As for why recency of claim matters, I don’t think it’s necessarily that important, but I was making a point. However, you could make the argument in the case of Native Americans that they’re still quite tied to the lands they live(d) on and often care for those lands in a way colonizers don’t, and therefore their presence is important for environmental reasons. You can’t really make the same argument for Jews and Israel.
Hahaha, what? Native Americans don’t have anyone calling for their extermination? They’re literally still subject to a genocide, like many racial minorities in the US. They were involuntarily sterilized up until the 1970s, and they’re still treated brutally by the government (and especially police).
child sexual abuse
I literally heard a speech in person from a Native man who was taken to a residential school and repeatedly sexual assaulted until he was suicidal while his age was still in single digits. There are people alive today who have experienced this stuff.
Nor do any of those points matter to innocents stabbed to death in a synagogue or blown up trying to buy some pizza. The issue is that Israel tried just existing but literally the day it was established it was attacked in an extermination attempts by literally every country surrounding it. Being oppressed doesn’t make it ok to turn around and oppress others but being under a constant state of siege does make it ok to take actions to ensure your safety as well as that of your citizens. Would you say that literal thousands of rocket attacks, hundreds of suicide bombings, bouts of stabbings, bouts of shootings, and more in addition to at least 3 military actions jointly taken by surrounding nations doesn’t count as a state of siege? If not what does?
regarding recency, we absolutely can make the argument of environmental importance to the land. See what twain wrote of it in our absence. Even now there is a literal green line separating land under our control vs under palestinian control. And I can tell you the green is definitely not on the palestinian side.
And I never said nobody is calling for native americans to be exterminated (although I do believe that it is true that there is nobody around today so bold as to outright say their continued existence here is intolerable in the literal sense that they should be rounded up and killed if they don’t leave and the dissolution of reservations is an absolute condition of their policy that they refuse to revise in any way despite the government of the gaza strip saying just that about israel) I said america’s leaders are not calling for their complete removal or extermination which is currently has been so for a while (~20 years) albeit not nearly as long as it should have been(~200 yrs).
I already said that not everything Palestinians do to fight back is good or justified. I believe attacks on the Israeli government and military are at least potentially justified, but no, random Israeli citizens should not be killed. But even unjust violence on the part of the Palestinians does not change the position of victim and aggressor here, any more than the brutality that some Native American tribes exhibited against European colonists did. And what do the actions of surrounding nations have to do with Palestinians? Besides, I’d say the oppression of Palestinians goes far beyond what anyone could possibly consider reasonable safety measures. Frankly, you sound like an American conservative talking about the “invasion” at the southern border.
Genuine question, because I literally don’t know this: Is the green in Israeli-occupied territory natural green that comes from good tending, or is it artificial green like all the grass in Las Vegas? Should it be there or is it a massive waste of water turning a desert into an unnatural and unsustainable oasis? And if it’s the former, could the lack of green on Palestinian soil be because of the bombings and destruction of infrastructure/social frameworks that could support greenery?
But even unjust violence on the part of the Palestinians does not change the position of victim and aggressor here, any more than the brutality that some Native American tribes exhibited against European colonists did.
I disagree. When the migrants are refugees you definitely become the aggressor when you start campaigns that explicitly call for their extermination.
And what do the actions of surrounding nations have to do with Palestinians?
because the palestinians supported these military campaigns
Besides, I’d say the oppression of Palestinians goes far beyond what anyone could possibly consider reasonable safety measures.
I disagree. What would you do when the enemy is indiscriminately firing rockets into civilian centers and fields of crops from hospitals, schoolyards, and apartment buildings? Let them keep at it and just call the occasional wildfire or dead civilian the cost of doing the right thing or bomb the launch site? If you bomb it do you do so without warning or give a 2-3 minute heads up that you’re going to do so? When people are constantly climbing the fence to commit terroristic acts on civilians do you just shrug or build a wall? That wall by the way has cut such events by over 80% and been lauded by analysts as a highly effective security measure.
Frankly, you sound like an American conservative talking about the “invasion” at the southern border.
except that there have not been multiple terrorist campaigns endorsed by the mexican government encouraging terrorism on US soil with the explicit goal of the extermination or eviction of every single american from the land. If that were the case I’d agree with them about what we should do.
Genuine question, because I literally don’t know this: Is the green in Israeli-occupied territory natural green that comes from good tending, or is it artificial green like all the grass in Las Vegas?
the former
Should it be there or is it a massive waste of water turning a desert into an unnatural and unsustainable oasis?
the former
And if it’s the former, could the lack of green on Palestinian soil be because of the bombings and destruction of infrastructure/social frameworks that could support greenery?
it’s possible although then I would blame the terrorists who destroy infrastructure and revel in their brethren’s suffering as they exploit it to demonize Israel rather than Israel themselves who, as I stated, actually left all of the infrastructure for the gaza strip intact when they pulled out.
Why does any of that matter? Why does any of that make it okay to displace the people who currently live in a place? It’s their homeland, too. They have at least as much a right to it as Israelis.
Shit, I’m for landback for indigenous Americans, and even I don’t think non-indigenous people should be kicked off the land they currently live on and relocated. And Native Americans have a much more recent claim to American land than Israelis do to Palestine.
Why does the fact that Jews have not been safe in any society on the planet in the past 2000 years matter? Why does it matter that they were forced off the land? Why does it matter that this bothered us and we’ve been demonstrably hoping and trying to return for the past two millenia? Because if any of those weren’t true I might cede that in some capacity we gave lost our claim to it. However the fact remains that we were forcibly dispossessed of our land and have a right to go back. Of course not at the expense of entirely uprooting those who moved in after us but enough that they and we really should share the land nicely.
If I could ask my own question in return I’d ask why recency of claim matters more than any of the factors I mentioned above. And for the record I agree that native Americans should have far more land rights than they do today. But at the very least they can dwell in a portion of their homeland without the leaders of the rest of those who reside who openly calling for their complete removal and/or extermination and that’s more than can be said for today’s Jews in Israel.
And none of that matters even one single iota to a Palestinian child who’s just been shot in the chest. Go ahead, go up to a grieving Palestinian family and tell them, “Well, I’m oppressed too.” So what? So fucking what? Having been displaced and oppressed doesn’t magically make it okay for you to turn around and do the same thing to others.
I don’t have a problem with Jews living in Palestine if they don’t displace the Palestinians. But that’s exactly what they’re doing. Jews, like anyone else, should be free to live absolutely anywhere on Earth without fear. But they have no right to inflict terror on others. No amount of oppression could possibly justify that.
As for why recency of claim matters, I don’t think it’s necessarily that important, but I was making a point. However, you could make the argument in the case of Native Americans that they’re still quite tied to the lands they live(d) on and often care for those lands in a way colonizers don’t, and therefore their presence is important for environmental reasons. You can’t really make the same argument for Jews and Israel.
Hahaha, what? Native Americans don’t have anyone calling for their extermination? They’re literally still subject to a genocide, like many racial minorities in the US. They were involuntarily sterilized up until the 1970s, and they’re still treated brutally by the government (and especially police).
child sexual abuse
I literally heard a speech in person from a Native man who was taken to a residential school and repeatedly sexual assaulted until he was suicidal while his age was still in single digits. There are people alive today who have experienced this stuff.
Nor do any of those points matter to innocents stabbed to death in a synagogue or blown up trying to buy some pizza. The issue is that Israel tried just existing but literally the day it was established it was attacked in an extermination attempts by literally every country surrounding it. Being oppressed doesn’t make it ok to turn around and oppress others but being under a constant state of siege does make it ok to take actions to ensure your safety as well as that of your citizens. Would you say that literal thousands of rocket attacks, hundreds of suicide bombings, bouts of stabbings, bouts of shootings, and more in addition to at least 3 military actions jointly taken by surrounding nations doesn’t count as a state of siege? If not what does?
regarding recency, we absolutely can make the argument of environmental importance to the land. See what twain wrote of it in our absence. Even now there is a literal green line separating land under our control vs under palestinian control. And I can tell you the green is definitely not on the palestinian side.
And I never said nobody is calling for native americans to be exterminated (although I do believe that it is true that there is nobody around today so bold as to outright say their continued existence here is intolerable in the literal sense that they should be rounded up and killed if they don’t leave and the dissolution of reservations is an absolute condition of their policy that they refuse to revise in any way despite the government of the gaza strip saying just that about israel) I said america’s leaders are not calling for their complete removal or extermination which is currently has been so for a while (~20 years) albeit not nearly as long as it should have been(~200 yrs).
I already said that not everything Palestinians do to fight back is good or justified. I believe attacks on the Israeli government and military are at least potentially justified, but no, random Israeli citizens should not be killed. But even unjust violence on the part of the Palestinians does not change the position of victim and aggressor here, any more than the brutality that some Native American tribes exhibited against European colonists did. And what do the actions of surrounding nations have to do with Palestinians? Besides, I’d say the oppression of Palestinians goes far beyond what anyone could possibly consider reasonable safety measures. Frankly, you sound like an American conservative talking about the “invasion” at the southern border.
Genuine question, because I literally don’t know this: Is the green in Israeli-occupied territory natural green that comes from good tending, or is it artificial green like all the grass in Las Vegas? Should it be there or is it a massive waste of water turning a desert into an unnatural and unsustainable oasis? And if it’s the former, could the lack of green on Palestinian soil be because of the bombings and destruction of infrastructure/social frameworks that could support greenery?
I disagree. When the migrants are refugees you definitely become the aggressor when you start campaigns that explicitly call for their extermination.
because the palestinians supported these military campaigns
I disagree. What would you do when the enemy is indiscriminately firing rockets into civilian centers and fields of crops from hospitals, schoolyards, and apartment buildings? Let them keep at it and just call the occasional wildfire or dead civilian the cost of doing the right thing or bomb the launch site? If you bomb it do you do so without warning or give a 2-3 minute heads up that you’re going to do so? When people are constantly climbing the fence to commit terroristic acts on civilians do you just shrug or build a wall? That wall by the way has cut such events by over 80% and been lauded by analysts as a highly effective security measure.
except that there have not been multiple terrorist campaigns endorsed by the mexican government encouraging terrorism on US soil with the explicit goal of the extermination or eviction of every single american from the land. If that were the case I’d agree with them about what we should do.
the former
the former
it’s possible although then I would blame the terrorists who destroy infrastructure and revel in their brethren’s suffering as they exploit it to demonize Israel rather than Israel themselves who, as I stated, actually left all of the infrastructure for the gaza strip intact when they pulled out.