A string of security, logistical and weather problems has battered the plan to deliver desperately needed humanitarian aid to Gaza through a U.S. military-built pier.
Sure, they’re a bunch of genocidal religious fucks. But then, so is the other side.
So why would you say “they have the right to defend themselves” if your only practical implementation just amounts to “go back in time and magically fix a centuries old religious conflict”?
They were attacked on day 1 of their existence.
Sure, they’re a bunch of genocidal religious fucks. But then, so is the other side.
So why would you say “they have the right to defend themselves” if your only practical implementation just amounts to “go back in time and magically fix a centuries old religious conflict”?
How do you classify invading land and killing civilians, while also cutting food and aid to said civilians as “defensive?”
Indeed!
Which turns us right back to the question: how should you defend yourself in this case?
You mean when foreign countries stole a bunch of land and gave it away?
You think right after that is when the conflict started?
And that it had nothing to do with Israel being formed by stealing it from the people who lived there continuously for thousands of years?
If you believe they have no right to live there and are free to be genocided until they leave, could you kindly explain what you meant with
So by “Israel has a right to existent”
You mean:
“Israel has a right to this stolen land, and also all the land they’re able to steal in the future”?
Yeah, I’m done here.