Don’t fall into the trap of ‘picking sides’ over Gaza: Hamas’s attacks were unconscionable, razing Gaza to the ground would be abhorrent. In both cases, basic humanity is at stake --- [Opinion]
Don’t fall into the trap of ‘picking sides’ over Gaza: Hamas’s attacks were unconscionable, razing Gaza to the ground would be abhorrent. In both cases, basic humanity is at stake --- [Opinion]
![Don’t fall into the trap of ‘picking sides’ over Gaza: Hamas’s attacks were unconscionable, razing Gaza to the ground would be abhorrent. In both cases, basic humanity is at stake --- [Opinion] - Feddit](https://lemdro.id/pictrs/image/1324bc6b-631c-4d59-bec7-2da603cb6fd7.png?format=webp&thumbnail=256)
Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/5185724
Original link is here: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/israel/gaza-war/63691/alan-rusbridger-gaza-war-israel-hamas
You're viewing a single thread.
Who is on Hamas's side? There are plenty of people on Palestine's side, but no one really wants to be on Hamas's side
I've seen plenty of contrarian tankies who are pro Hamas. Often the same "anti imperialists" who hate the West so much they think supporting Ukraine is bad.
Personally I'm of the opinion that both sides are genocidal and anybody with a clear idea what to do there is lying, but I've been banned from !worldnews@lemmy.ml as "genocide denial" for agreeing with Biden that we should be suspicious of the claimed death numbers coming out of Palestine because both sides have a history of lying about violent acts in their conflict.
I know a few people in real life who are referring to them as freedom fighters.
Idunno, I don't fuss about that because I'm perfectly capable of thinking that they're both terrorists and freedom fighters.
They're fighting for the freedom of Gaza... but they use terrorism tactics, refuse to abide by ceasefires, and have genocidal beliefs.
Those don't seem mutually exclusive for me.
We all contain multitudes.
But that said, somebody who goes to "freedom fighter" as their first noun for them, that's kind of a red flag.
I'm perfectly capable of thinking that they're both terrorists and freedom fighters.
It's not just that they "can" be both, it's more that they "have to" be both.
"Freedom fighter" is a term reserved for the underdog, the one who can't use sheer military power to terrorize a whole region (like a couple US Carrier Strike Groups with nukes) or some surrounding countries (like a US funded Israeli military with some nukes of their own). Established democracies and recognized states, can use their "military" to terrorize a whole population by just threatening to bomb the living shit out of the civilians, while "freedom fighters" can only terrorize through surprise attacks and extreme brutality... aka, by being "terrorists".
Bottom line: all "freedom fighters" need to be "terrorists", otherwise they'd be called "a military".
somebody who goes to "freedom fighter" as their first noun for them, that's kind of a red flag.
That's a bit harsh, what if they understand the two are synonyms? 🤷
Terrorism is a tactic, so no, not all "freedom fighters" are terrorists. There are and have been throughout history many guerrilla groups that don't use terrorism tactics but that could still be called "freedom fighters."
Hm... can you give an example?
Off the top of my head, all I can come up with associated with "freedom fighters", is using both guerrilla tactics and terrorism to fight against some superior enemy. The next closest thing, are non-terrorist "freedom movements" like Gandhi's (which comes with a separate can of worms).
The last part of what you said was what I was hoping to get at. To a few people I know, theyre freedom fighters and rebels before terrorists.
A problem with Lemmy (and a bigger one with Reddit) is that conversations can include context and nuance, while mods don't always can or want to take them into account, so you better make each comment stand on its own, or you can get the boot "out of the blue".
I would agree, but there are people here on Lemmy and elsewhere who don't distinguish between Palestinian people and the Hamas. It's like a 'tankie' versus 'anti-tankie' game, 'us and them', and nothing in between. If you don't choose, each side accuses you of being the enemy.
Addition:
Just watched this interview (video + transcript). A journalist tells about his visit of tbe occupied territories in Palestine. At some point he arrives at one of the many checkpoints.
And I was walking to the checkpoint, and an Israeli guard stepped out, probably about the age of my son. And he said to me, “What’s your religion, bro?” And I said, “Well, you know, I’m not really religious.” And he said, “Come on. Stop messing around. What is your religion?” I said, “I’m not playing. I’m not really religious.” And it became clear to me that unless I professed my religion, and the right religion, I wasn’t going to be allowed to walk forward. So, he said, “Well, OK, so what was your parents’ religion?” I said, “Well, they weren’t that religious, either.” He says, “What were your grandparents’ religion?” And I said, “My grandmother was a Christian.” And then he allowed me to pass.
So there, even as you just walk around, you seem to be checked 'to whom you belong'.
The selective outrage is also very telling. Palestinian civilians killed by indiscriminate bombing? Apoplectic red-faced spittle-flying fury!
Ukrainian civilians or even Syrian civilians killed by the same? Relative silence even though in both cases it was even less provoked. What's really going on here? And I don't mean that as a rhetorical question either; I honestly don't know. I have a theory, but I'm not entirely confident in it just yet.
The problem is very simple. Israel and their neoliberal allies want you to think the only sides are Israel and Hamas. But you and I support the third side, the civilians. You simply have to redefine the argument. You tell them, "I am against Israel. And I'm against Hamas too. I've picked my side, and it's the innocents".
People like that: https://lemm.ee/comment/5671897