Zero respect for people who “sympathize” with Palestinians, but who instantly condemns fighting back against their occupation.
Are Palestinians meant to just sit there and die slowly while we feel sorry for them?
there were two reigns of terror but liberals ignore one of them every time
“Can the hungry go on a hunger strike? Non-violence is a piece of theatre. You need an audience. What can you do when you have no audience? People have the right to resist annihilation”
Arundhati Roy
MLK Birmingham Jail letter
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.
The purpose of Qassam rockets isn’t to inflict casualties- it is to disrupt normal everyday routine, which Israel has been doing to Gaza for 75 years.
They rarely kill anyone. But they do cause Iron Dome to fire very expensive counter-missiles.
but my says it’s terrorism
Stealing a post from the trueanon subreddit: “Gaza is both morally and conceptually the same as the Warsaw Ghetto”
I support the Palestinian armed struggle. However does a UN resolution mean anything? I know that in US politics, resolutions are just symbolic and don’t carry force of law.
General Assembly resolutions are helpful signposts of international law but not a binding source of international law. For something to be a point of customary international law, it needs to have jus cogens and state practice. In simple terms, countries need to believe that it is law and act accordingly.
GA resolutions are useful as statements of jus cogens (belief that law exists) but not necessarily determinative.
None of this is relevant to your question though, since the US does not abide by international law.
