Sometimes yes. I know very little about the Israelo-palestinian confilct (only what I read from news outlet) so I can’t say anything for sure here.
But more generally, in history, there have been plenty of conflicts that were one side’s responsability: Ukraine’s invasion, WW2, colonie’s independance “wars”… IMO, when you defend yourself from an agression, you are not responsible for the conflict.
In this case, I tend to agree with other commentors - Israel seems to have been increasingly oppressive and brutal at least in the past 2 decades, and you can only push people so far before they react.
How they react matters though. If Palestinians brutally murdered Israeli children, I think we’d all agree there’s absolutely no justification for that, no matter what rings wrongs Israel has committed.
Palestine has every right to fight back against Israel, but not the civilians. When a country kills your civilians, you solve absolutely nothing by retaliation killing their civilians. Your enemy is their military and government.
I firmly believe it is impossible to push someone to a point where their attacking innocent people can be justified.
Israel has left Gaza in 2005 and only received missiles and terrorist attacks in return.
Although no side is mother Teresa in this conflict, one is is definitely less mother Teresa than the other.
Israel continues to expand their occupation of Palestinian land, though. Do you think Palestinians in Gaza have no stake in the well-being of other Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank?
They’re only bringing about their own ruin. Fuck, if they actually wanted to do something, then be human fucking beings and adults and come to solve agreement/ compromise. Israel isn’t going anywhere. They only stand to lose more and more by not coming to the table but instead being violent terrorists. They can keep killing for hundreds of years. They’ll end up with even less and accomplish nothing.
Do you think only one side can be responsible in a conflict?
Sometimes yes. I know very little about the Israelo-palestinian confilct (only what I read from news outlet) so I can’t say anything for sure here.
But more generally, in history, there have been plenty of conflicts that were one side’s responsability: Ukraine’s invasion, WW2, colonie’s independance “wars”… IMO, when you defend yourself from an agression, you are not responsible for the conflict.
In this case, I tend to agree with other commentors - Israel seems to have been increasingly oppressive and brutal at least in the past 2 decades, and you can only push people so far before they react.
How they react matters though. If Palestinians brutally murdered Israeli children, I think we’d all agree there’s absolutely no justification for that, no matter what rings wrongs Israel has committed.
Palestine has every right to fight back against Israel, but not the civilians. When a country kills your civilians, you solve absolutely nothing by retaliation killing their civilians. Your enemy is their military and government.
I firmly believe it is impossible to push someone to a point where their attacking innocent people can be justified.
No one is denying that.
Israel has left Gaza in 2005 and only received missiles and terrorist attacks in return. Although no side is mother Teresa in this conflict, one is is definitely less mother Teresa than the other.
Israel continues to expand their occupation of Palestinian land, though. Do you think Palestinians in Gaza have no stake in the well-being of other Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank?
They’re only bringing about their own ruin. Fuck, if they actually wanted to do something, then be human fucking beings and adults and come to solve agreement/ compromise. Israel isn’t going anywhere. They only stand to lose more and more by not coming to the table but instead being violent terrorists. They can keep killing for hundreds of years. They’ll end up with even less and accomplish nothing.
He said aggressor.
And idoubledo did not say aggressor. So what do we gain by fixating on this word?