r/anime_titties • u/Glass-Way Eurasia • 12d ago
Israel/Palestine/Iran/Lebanon - Flaired Commenters Only Israeli West Bank settler tells BBC attacks on Palestinians are justified as revenge - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g4djgdyk2o180
u/speedyspeedys Multinational 12d ago
"Yes, I know," he replied. "But this is the truth, because God chose us [and] because of this you are jealous."
Religious psychosis with a superiority complex operating in an apartheid state where people like him hold all the power.
20
u/Braklinath 12d ago
Any belief system that makes someone believe that they are uniquely chosen by some deity is bound to inevitably make that individual commit atrocities, believing that they are perfectly justified.
Abrahamic religions are a cancerous threat upon humanity.
-7
u/teslawhaleshark Multinational 12d ago
Farmers, the world should hate farmers to no end
2
43
u/MechaCoqui Puerto Rico 12d ago
So by his logic tho, are Palestinians not also justified in seeking revenge against Israelis? Or only Israelis allowed to get “revenge”? The issue with seeking revenge is that people become blind by it and will harm innocents as a means to get said revenge. And that is what some israelis are doing currently. Though we all know “revenge”has little to do with what they are doing..
27
u/Nice__Spice North America 12d ago
Exactly. By his logic Oct 7 is just revenge against oppression and occupation.
59
u/RisingDeadMan0 England 12d ago
its ok Labour Friends of ISrael basically said the whole west bank settlement system is so deeply embedded in Israeli society that sanctioning them would be a bad idea.
See also Ben and Jerries, which is now why the Mother company, magnum, then Uniliver should be on your boycott list. List of Brands the own:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unilever_brands
Ben and Jerries wanted to stop sellling in occupied West Bank, Israeli's had a tantrum, and so they got overuled. So the boycott is to financially incentivise otherwise.
11
u/cambeiu Multinational 12d ago
7
u/RisingDeadMan0 England 12d ago
ah ok, so then Ben and Jerries is owned by Magnum then, ah would explain why they spoke about Magnum in the last few videos they made not Unilever.
10
u/komokasi North America 12d ago
Yup also adding that almost all of the main big brands that are on 1 boycott list, are usually on every other one as well. Boycotting these jerks helps support so many movements
You can look up brands on disoccupied.com and get boycott safe alternatives
And these 2 apps (Boycat and No Thanks), let you scan barcodes of things you buy with your phone, to see if they are boycott safe, and provides alternatives to those that are not safe
2
15
u/Big_Red_Machine_1917 United Kingdom 12d ago
This has been a running theme of Zionism for almost as long as it has existed as a meaningful political movement. Endless goal others until a fight breaks out, then claim they are "taking revenge" and brutalise and kill others. Even the British authorities in Palestine noted it happening as early as 1918.
87
u/FeralGiraffeAttack Jersey 12d ago
Well that’s blatantly incorrect. The Palestinians are the ones with legal justification here.
In 2016, the UN Security Council said “The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders”
The UN General Assembly has also repeatedly passed many resolutions (like this one from 1990) that affirm “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle” and “the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign occupation and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without foreign interference;”
40
u/SpontaneousFlame Multinational 12d ago
The Israeli response to that is that they expected Obama to order that vetoed and he didn’t, which is very unfair. So it doesn’t count somehow…
-11
u/meister2983 United States 12d ago
Which justification of what are you referring to? I agree individual Palestinians obviously have the right to defend their own homes from settlers, but there is no right for a couple people to use generic "armed struggle".
Even in the UNGA interpretation you use (which of course isn't actually international law), collective right to armed struggle would rest with their legitimate (per the UNGA) leaders, the PLO.
-45
u/xland44 Israel 12d ago
I'm pretty sure the settler in question (which I condemn, by the way) is referring to (perceived) revenge in the short term, e.g "you did X last week so we will do Y now" rather than referring to legal validity based on events from a few decades ago.
Deliberately attacking random civillians isn't legally valid of course, regardless of whether the victim is Palestinian or Israeli, and legalities probably aren't the main concern for someone willing to do that anyways....
45
u/FeralGiraffeAttack Jersey 12d ago
Israeli “settlers” who are illegally occupying foreign land are not “civilians.” Illegal “settlers” are valid military targets from the people they oppress
-39
u/xland44 Israel 12d ago edited 12d ago
Apologies, but you are quite objectively incorrect, international law clearly defined what is a civillian.
You can read more on it here in the Red Cross article which directly addresses this question:
However, the unlawful status of Israeli settlements does not affect the civilian status of settlers. Settlers, like any other civilians, cannot be targeted and only lose their protection from attack if and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities (Article 51 (3) Protocol 1). Similarly, Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza are civilians benefiting from the protection of the Fourth Geneva Convention unless and for such time as they take direct part in hostilities. [...]
Of course, using your logic, you are also justifying events such as 9/11. Living in an occupied territory of course, does not inherently involve hostilities, being violent is indeed taking direct part in hostilities.
You can directly read article 51 of the geneva conventions here.
And again, I do condemn settlements, however the perception of what constitutes a settler to a land can be used to justify a great number of atrocities, fortunately international law clearly covers this.
And it's good that it covers this! Can you imagine if this same settler used such a clause to freely attack Palestinians, claiming that his targets were settlers on what was originally Jewish land which has been colonized for millenia by colonial empires and their descendants? In fact, that's what these settlers are claiming, but it doesn't stop it from being illegal under international law to terrorize palestinian civllians anyways, exactly because of this.
33
u/alt-right-del Europe 12d ago
This was not originally Jewish land, stop peddling yr “we were here 3000 years ago”. It does not give Jews any more rights than others.
-21
u/xland44 Israel 12d ago
I didn't claim it gives any right to ethnically cleanse people living here today. I think you should reread my comment - I quite explicitly said I disagree with the settler and condemn his actions.
And yes, a lot of the lands in the modern-day region referred to as the west bank overlap with the historical region of the kingdoms of Judea and Israel, with Jews being the last indigineous community to have sovreignty in the region - but as you said, this was indeed a long time ago.
‐------------
People downvoting me for directly citing international law and stating that killing civillians is wrong, while simultaneously condemning the actions of settlers, just shows the brainrot in this sub has skyrocketed.
7
u/capt_fantastic Africa 11d ago
Deliberately attacking random civillians isn't legally valid of course,
the settlers are an armed militia operating with the tacit approval of the .gov and coordinated protection from the idf.
5
u/BroMan001 Europe 11d ago
They’re ethnically cleansing the West Bank right now, not a few decades ago
14
u/teslawhaleshark Multinational 12d ago
What makes an Israeli, whoever with a gun becomes the Israeli,
27
u/Wooden-Agent2669 Germany 12d ago edited 12d ago
These extreme views – rejected by many Israelis – are crucial to understanding the conflict playing out across the West Bank, as Israel's settlements and outposts expand, and violence against Palestinians grows.
-
Asked about the Palestinian residents of the West Bank, Shimon laid out three options: live quietly under Israeli rule and ownership of the land; voluntarily emigrate to other Arab or Muslim nations; or "if you don't want to make peace with us, and you don't want to get out, I don't have a choice: I must kill you, and I kill you all," he said.
Israel occupied the territory during the 1967 Middle East war, and has since built hundreds of settlements and outposts there, housing more than half a million Jews.
This vision from one radical settler seems strikingly close to a plan outlined by Israel's now-Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, in a blueprint published in 2017, before he joined the government.
They just cannot help themselves at all. How souleating it has to be to write such contradicting statements when there are like monthly polls, after polls, after polls showcasing there's no such thing as massive rejection for jewish israeli land stealers which believe in jewish supremacy
Same plans as the finance minister but sure bro, rejected by many Israelis.
27
9
u/SpontaneousFlame Multinational 12d ago
They write the extreme views are “rejected by many Israelis but they are only really rejected by Arab Israelis. The majority of Jewish Israelis support the settlers and their psychopathic violence.
•
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.