Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is sharply protesting against growing criticism from top ally the United States over his leadership amid the war with Hamas.
Because that state is the one at war with them… they stole their lands, displaced them, and bombed them every few years for resisting colonialism and invasion.
You would not find it acceptable to live under thr rule of an occupier, so why should I as a Palestinian?
I don’t know how organizing terrorist attacks from time to time and then refusing 2 state solution can be considered a resistance. EDIT: To me it seems like they chose the all or nothing route.
Also, it is still counter productive for Palestinians to attack israel when they are reliant of them.
I don’t know how being an apartheid state all the time for 75+ years then refusing a two state solution can be considered a democratic legal state…
You make it sound like Palestinians are dogs fed by Israelis… if you colonize a nation, you are obliged to provide for them. If Israel doesn’t want Gazans to be “reliant” on their “generous donations” of food and water, they should not have sieged them and abused them day in and day out.
Issue with this argument is that there was never a palestinian state. It was ruled by Britain and then Britain left and let UN decide. UN decided to create 2 news states that never existed before. It was not like someone had a state before and then UN came and chopped part of it.
Why is Gaza reliant on a state they are in a war with in the first place?
Because that state is the one at war with them… they stole their lands, displaced them, and bombed them every few years for resisting colonialism and invasion.
You would not find it acceptable to live under thr rule of an occupier, so why should I as a Palestinian?
I don’t know how organizing terrorist attacks from time to time and then refusing 2 state solution can be considered a resistance. EDIT: To me it seems like they chose the all or nothing route.
Also, it is still counter productive for Palestinians to attack israel when they are reliant of them.
I don’t know how being an apartheid state all the time for 75+ years then refusing a two state solution can be considered a democratic legal state…
You make it sound like Palestinians are dogs fed by Israelis… if you colonize a nation, you are obliged to provide for them. If Israel doesn’t want Gazans to be “reliant” on their “generous donations” of food and water, they should not have sieged them and abused them day in and day out.
Issue with this argument is that there was never a palestinian state. It was ruled by Britain and then Britain left and let UN decide. UN decided to create 2 news states that never existed before. It was not like someone had a state before and then UN came and chopped part of it.
And yet Jews in America in 1936 were like:
Palestinian identity existed all along. They would have gotten independence like Jordan or any other distinct group around them.
Instead, the Nakba happened. I wonder why…
There was an offer to create Palestine but it was declined.