No you are absolutely wrong. The right to resist is recognized human rights.
Ah, so it’s all fine that Hamas primarily targets civilians then. I guess those women and children on October 7 had it coming - it was their fault for being born Israeli!
Oh, wait, there was a bunch of international tourists among the victims? Well, fuck them too for coming to Israel!
The Palestinians have giving away their weapons before and it didn’t get them anywhere.
The South African government supporting armed resistance has very little to do with a moral position. It has more to do with them seeking support from Iran and Russia for their corruption.
I know it’s not fair. It is brutal and inhumane.
Israel is committing a genocide Gaza to a degree we have not seen since the genocide in Dafhur.
My point is one of practicality. What does a violent attack on civilians achieve for the palestinian cause?
Say a man is in the woods with his family and they come across a wolf. The man attacks the wolf unprovoked and the wolf fights back, but the man is too strong. His only hope is that the family would tell the man to stop, or that a park ranger would notice it and intervene.
Would the wolf attacking the mans family achieve anything in its favour? Or would that erode his support with the family and the park ranger?
No you are absolutely wrong. The right to resist is recognized human rights.
Even South Africa recognized the Palestinians rights for arms resistance.
Israel goes around kidnapping people with military force and because media call it arrest it is okay. When Hamas do the same, you think it is wrong.
The Palestinians have giving away their weapons before and it didn’t get them anywhere.
your comments are objectively wrong.
Ah, so it’s all fine that Hamas primarily targets civilians then. I guess those women and children on October 7 had it coming - it was their fault for being born Israeli!
Oh, wait, there was a bunch of international tourists among the victims? Well, fuck them too for coming to Israel!
When did that happen?
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/07/world/plo-gives-up-arms-to-the-lebanese-army.html
OK, fair enough. I assumed you meant “Hamas” when you wrote that, for some reason, which was dumb.
So, yeah, the Palestinians, or PLO, did that, true. And then Hamas took over and fucked up the situation.
Whatever “side” you’re on, I think we can both agree that fundamentalist psychopaths - on both sides - are the guilty party.
Irony, the ultimate weapon of the argumentless
The South African government supporting armed resistance has very little to do with a moral position. It has more to do with them seeking support from Iran and Russia for their corruption.
I know it’s not fair. It is brutal and inhumane.
Israel is committing a genocide Gaza to a degree we have not seen since the genocide in Dafhur.
My point is one of practicality. What does a violent attack on civilians achieve for the palestinian cause?
Say a man is in the woods with his family and they come across a wolf. The man attacks the wolf unprovoked and the wolf fights back, but the man is too strong. His only hope is that the family would tell the man to stop, or that a park ranger would notice it and intervene.
Would the wolf attacking the mans family achieve anything in its favour? Or would that erode his support with the family and the park ranger?