That's true but if the UK military intentionally embeds in all UK cities, in civilian clothes, and launches rockets at Russia from those cities, and the UK sends raids into Russia to kill Russians and then retreats and mixes with civilian population in the UK, what do you feel is a legitimate move or tactic by Russia to defend its citizens in this hypothetical situation?
And what if Russia had been colonizing Scotland, then Wales, then half of England, only left disjointed pockets of UK residents not allowed to vote, being watched 24/7, being beaten, harassed and killed by settlers under the watch of Russian army, and then being beaten when going to the funeral of their dead, being robbed of their natural resources, having to go through checkpoints to see their family, London being half the UK capital and half the Russian capital but actually Russia says the entirety of London is, Russia bombing neighbour countries, all of this illegal and happening for 75 years and no one in the world does anything because the richest country in the world blindly supports Russia ?
It's less of a context than your political position or opinion. I think it's also at the very least naive and simplistic. As one example, those checkpoints you're describing did not exist before terrorism such as suicide bombers and other indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians. They also do not exist in Gaza. I'm finding it hard to follow the rest of your analogy.
My context is that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 as a pilot for a plan for complete disengagement from the Palestinians, effectively the two state solution everyone talks about. It handed this region, that used to be occupied (from Egypt) to the Palestinians to make their own. The settlements in Gaza were dismantled and the settlers left. Nobody was being watched or harassed by Israel. Hamas took control of Gaza by force and turned it into a mini-Caliphate with the sole purpose of killing all Jews in the middle east. Launching suicide bombers from it and launching 10's of thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. I think this is a more accurate context than yours.
What I will agree with you is that the history of the conflict has relevance to the morality of Israel's actions. I would say though that Hamas' conduct is: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and immoral. This does not need any context. It's absolute. I would also be inclined to say, in this light, that Israel's response to Oct 7th is moral regardless of previous context. I don't think there's any "oppression" or "occupation" that justifies the violence we've seen from the Palestinian side. I can't think of any similar historical examples of these levels of indiscriminate violence against civilians. It's not just their violence towards Israel but their violence towards each other (using children or people with mental problems as suicide bombers e.g.). At least not in modern times.
Israel is not "colonizing" anything. The state of Israel is the UN recognized legal entity in Mandatory Palestine, following the British Mandate, following the Ottoman Empire's collapse. I don't think Israeli settlements in the west bank (occupied from Jordan but historically part of the British Mandate, so complicated story there) are useful. I also don't like the settlers harassment of Palestinians (which is really a relatively recent phenomena, not going all the way back to 1967) in the west bank. But Palestinians have been attacking Israelis all along as well in some pretty bad ways and refusing to try and settle.
And I can also say that your view is less context than a personal biased view on the situation. Mixing up Hamas and Palestinians as if they're all the same. Excusing Israel's response as just and proportionate, meaning that shelling entire neighborhoods, sniping people left and right, shooting at an ambulance are somehow fighting terrorism. Saying on all platforms that the goal is to "exterminate animals", from the highest personnel in positions of power. Shooting civilians who try to get food, blocking humanitarian convoys from entering, putting as part of a plan the total blockade of water, food, electricity of millions of people, that's fighting terrorism ?
> Launching suicide bombers from it and launching 10's of thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. I think this is a more accurate context than yours.
If you want to put context, put context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_co... . But a fight on numbers is stupid so let's not go there. You want to put context as to why 10's of rockets explode on Israel cities, you have to explain why for each rocket Israel retaliates with 10 deaths on Palestinian side. It's all part of it.
> Israel is not "colonizing" anything. The state of Israel is the UN recognized legal entity in Mandatory Palestine,
EDIT: I'm not even making this up: "Israel approves plans for 3,400 new homes in West Bank settlements" -- "Israel has built about 160 settlements housing some 700,000 Jews since it occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem - land the Palestinians want as part of a future state - in the 1967 Middle East war" <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68490034>
> But Palestinians have been attacking Israelis all along as well in some pretty bad ways and refusing to try and settle.
Oh come on. Let my country come to your land, force you to leave by hundred thousands, harass you, beat you, kill you, and let's see if you accept me settling there nicely and comfortably.
We could go on and on and on but please put the context if you want to talk about it, the real one, not the one you pick. The one that is internationally recognized but no one says anything because of interests. The one that is plain visible for all to see. There is suffering on all sides, please don't pretend it's easy.
Maybe we don't even disagree. The real conflict is between the Israel State and the Palestinian "State", or governing bodies. Let those far-right atrocities who know and help each other fight in a cage and leave the population, on both side, alone.
I think we do agree given your last sentence. I'll sign on to that.
On the details of the history this wasn't "my country come to your land and forced you to leave" it was more like "Jewish people immigrated to this region, their historic homeland, many expelled from their homes in Europe and the middle east and had no options" (compare e.g. to Chinese people from Hong Kong immigrating to Canada) and "war started by the Arab countries against the UN recognized state of Israel led to 700,000 Palestinians refugees" (I'd compare to millions of German refugees in Europe post their loss in WW-II). Jewish immigration to the region was legal and should be viewed as moral on many levels. If the Arab population were to look at it as the positive that it could have been then we'd all be living happily ever after in a prosperous middle east. If anything millions of Jews could have been saved in WW-II if Britain were to allow more of them to immigrate- that was immoral. The Arabs had, and still do, see this as a (racist) zero sum game, not a win-win (vs. how Canada looks at immigration again e.g.). Read Israel's declaration of independence to see how Israel's leadership looked at it (and keep in mind this was 1948!).
The settlements are a tricky topic. I'm opposed to them and the settlers. But this is not what most people talk about when they say Israel is a colonist. What most people mean is the existence of the state of Israel is the "settlement". That's their political perspective and IMO both racist and a distortion of history.
Thanks for providing your pov, it explains a lot of things and even though I have my views I can totally understand why we disagree:
> Jewish immigration to the region was legal
This is the crux of where we disagree. It was legal based on international law, but international law is just western law: Palestinians and neighboring countries said no, and under the same international law they were in the right: they have the right to self-determination. So if we take the legal point, the argument is not receivable
> and should be viewed as moral on many levels
That's plainly subjective and my own thinking makes me say it's immoral to displace hundreds of thousands of people and take their homes, their land, their food, just because.
> But this is not what most people talk about when they say Israel is a colonist. What most people mean is the existence of the state of Israel is the "settlement"
I disagree, anyone I've seen talking about the colonialist aspect of Israel is specifically all the illegal settlements outside its borders, it's the massive control of Palestinian population, it's forbidding them access to their own sea, that kind of things. Everyone who talks about it is clear.
When people talk about the existence of Israel and its racist laws, they will rather use the term "apartheid" which is closer to the truth.
In any case, those disagreements are to be put in perspective to what we both agree on, and that is the nice note of this discussion :)
I wonder if Sir William Wallace, a.k.a. Braveheart, would be considered a Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter. When England invaded and occupied and imposed ridiculous rules on them, should they have not fought back? How about the Potato Famine, how many of you know that this was caused by England INTENTIONALLY by shipping all the food out of Ireland to England. is Sinn Fein a terrorist group still? or were they so named because they fought an occupier?
I'm not familiar at all with these stories. I should read about them.
I think there's a fairly clear delineation between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. A terrorist's goal is to sow terror among the target entity. It does so by random indiscriminate violence (and barbarism). The more random the target is and the more barbaric the attack is the better. 9/11 is a good example. A terrorist has no moral qualms. The goal justifies anything. It's almost certain that the terrorist is losing in any measurable objective. E.g. the Chechen attacks in Moscow leading to Russia essentially levelling Chechnia, or the Sri Lankans destroying the Tamils. It's kind of a lost cause made worse by violence.
A freedom fighter, to contrast, will weigh the morality of their actions vs. what they can accomplish and other non-violent alternatives. They will weigh the violence they use, their targets, against specific "freedom" goals. They will not sacrifice their own humanity to pursue their goal. They have some reasonable chance of achieving some real "freedom" goals out of the targeted acts of violence. WW-II Partisans come to mind.
Gaza is among the most densly populated areas on earth. By definition, any military installation is close to civilians. Same goes for a lot of IDF, and every other military, ehich has bases next to a city. Doesn't mean one just can indiscriminately bomb everything and everyone...
