Protesters calling for cease-fire in Israel-Hamas war block freeway in Seattle for several hours
Protesters calling for cease-fire in Israel-Hamas war block freeway in Seattle for several hours
Protesters calling for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war blocked northbound traffic on Interstate 5 in Seattle for several hours Saturday.
Can someone please calmly explain how blocking a freeway across an ocean and a country on a different continent, is supposed to have any effect on a political issue in the middle east?
You're viewing a single thread.
Because the US has a massive hand in that political issue in the middle east.
Well they are funding it with those protestors' tax dollars
Oh yeah that too.
If I was American I would also be livid, like what the fuck are you guys doing
I mean, our tax dollars regularly go to heinous shit. Just the fact that like 50% of the US budget for living memory goes to the military means that you're already starting deeply in the moral red.
Also the even more direct fact that Israel exists primarily to provide the US control over middle eastern oil. It's an air base and port and provides air space through which to it can attack countries in the region. The constant war carried out by Israel against neighbors and within it's own border destabalizes the region, making it easier to maintain US supported authoritarians.
Making life harder for people in cars is actually direct action against one of the root causes of the genocide. If you are in a car, you are complicit in genocide.
The US has no shortage of air bases in the Middle East. I find it difficult to believe Israel is of particular importance for that reason.
Not all anti-Israel commentary is antisemitic....but this sure as hell is.
Israel exists primarily to provide the US control over oil in the region? That's its purpose for existing?
That argument shows complete disregard for the millions of Jews living there and the sequence of events that led to the need for a sovereign Jewish state in the first place
This seems like conflating purpose and reason, or current function.
Israel acts independently and has it's own interests, which sometimes conflict with US interests, but often align. The US continues to prop Israel up because it needs access to the region.
Saying that the British and later Americans used Jews in the same way they used Scotch Irish or other marginalized people to colonize land they wanted to control by proxy is just a statement about history. It would be anti-semetic to suggest that Israel is somehow able to manipulate the US in to funding and arming it, rather than the relationship going primarily the opposite direction... As the US does with it's many other proxies all over the world. It would be anti-semetic to suggest that Israel is somehow unique in being funded and supported by the US without being part of US global strategy. If we can accept that Israel is just another US proxy, then we ask, "given the local geopolitics, would Israel exist without US support?"
The history of persecution that allowed the British and Americans to exploit Jews to colonize Palestine isn't what my post was about. I can understand the confusion. I assume it was in good faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
Not only Britian/the US but also the Nazis.
You're straight up being antisemitic, equating an apartheid state to jewishness
The context was a question about why it makes sense for Americans to protest by blocking freeways. In other contexts, saying that Israel exists to to secure oil access could be antisemitic. There is a really complicated history, which is full of really complicated and tragic decisions that my post ignores... because it isn't relevant for this context.
I don't think this is equating Zionism and Judiasm, but just an honest callout not taking context in to account. I probably could have worded my post better to avoid confusion.
....he said to the Jew. Op literally said the reason for Israel's existence is oil interests.
Israel IS an apartheid state. Fuck the Israeli government and fuck Netenyahu especially. But that doesn't make OP right
Jewish people can be antisemitic, lmao.
Equating zionism with jewishness is antisemitic
Some of my family didn't survive a death camp to be used as a cudgel for a settler colonial project.
That argument shows complete disregard for the millions of Jews living there and the sequence of events that led to the need for a sovereign Jewish state in the first place
This is using the holocaust to justify Israel, it is ahistorical and disgusting.
The reason for the creation of the Israeli state where it is was absolutely a political decision by the big Western powers (just like the repeated backing of Arab religious fanaticism over secular nationalism, btw). If the primary concern was providing a home for displaced Jews, land in Germany or the US would have made much more sense.
eat shit zionist
Disagreeing with Israeli government atrocities? Must be the next fucking Hitler.
Israeli government can fuck off. They are horrific. Doesn't mean Israel exists for the purpose of defending oil interests
According to the Havaara agreement it was initially to fill up plantations with workers who would pay tax to Germany too.
The people delayed in traffic on the other hand have zero influence. And more than likely are now massive Israel supporters due to being so pissed off by the protesters.
The economy being affected by the protest does, though. But setting aside the effectiveness of this method of protesting, lemme just quote MLK here.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
This is your attitude now.
Except this quote could quite easily be used to justify absolutely any method of achieving a goal
I fail to see how MLKs words about white moderates pacifity can be applied to any method of acheiving a goal, its clearly about using direct action from the bottom up to achieve goals outside of the completely pacified and useless manner white 'haves' protest in historically, and the disdain they have for people actually trying to work outside of the 'red vs blue' dichatomy that does nothing for them.
I mean that's if you take it as a one-paragraph Bible I guess.
Hit dogs holler
I've never seen it used otherwise
I too support genocide on the first inconvenience.