1193
Israel's siege of Gaza is illegal, EU says
(euobserver.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
1193 points (94.9% liked)
World News
32076 readers
1535 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
The UN and EU consider lots of things Israel does illegal. We just don't do anything about it and they don't care.
This is true. But it is also because there isn't a much better alternative.
The Palestinians don't have a Nelson Mandela, MLK or Mahatma Gandhi kind of person that the western world can rally around and support.
Like, I'm sitting here at home in Europe, thoroughly disapproving of Israel, while being also fully disgusted by what Hamas did.
And I understand why Palestinians fight. I can understand that they can't be fully pacifist and that they don't have the capability to wage a normal war, so they result to asymmetric warfare.
But if they had just cleanly killed or kidnapped the adults and spared the children, that would have been the minimum to not fully alienate a lot of people who are sympathetic to their cause.
I guess Yasser Arafat was the best they had and it only went downhill after that.
Thing also is that those people were also hated during thier time and also called terrorists. There’s no good options for a leader sadly.
I was alive when Nelson Mandela was active, and he wasn't called a terrorist in the west.
He was revered as a hero by many in the West, just like Navalny is revered today.
By Reagan and the establishment, yes.
But many western people and institutions were definitely promoting and supporting him from the very beginning.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_honours_received_by_Nelson_Mandela
Unofficial support does not matter as much as official position recognised internationally. USA also supported Nazi Germany until USSR marched in and whooped Hitler's twink ass.
Lol fucking what? The USSR militarily supported the Nazis until they were attacked
Thanks for lying out of your teeth. You are practicing Hitler's Big Lie principles remarkably well.
Yes, the USSR and Nazi Germany were definitely working together, not sure what you're talking about here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact
This is what I read. Did you, in good faith, forget to mention that its true, non-masked name, is "Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"? A ceasefire pact is not a "we are friends" pact, but a pact to not bomb the fuck out of each other. Why did Soviets few years later hold parts of Berlin and Germany to purge Nazis, as Allied Forces worked under USSR to defeat Hitler? Why did Allied Forces not agree to align with USSR and defeat Nazi Germany, until Hitler's regime internally failed with munitions and USSR was well on the way to defeat Hitler?
Do you know that the real "we are friends" energy radiates not out of a ceasefire pact between USSR and Nazi Germany, but between USA and Nazi Germany, considering USA was the basis for all of Hitler's racial segregation policies? Straight from a CIA news outlet. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/11/what-america-taught-the-nazis/540630/
I think you need to take a breath mate...
Yes, the USSR and Nazi Germany were cooperative during WWII until the Nazis thought they could expand the eastern front. That is just a fact. I'm not saying they were Allied, but they weren't exactly enemies until the Nazi betrayal of said NAP.
I did not bring up the US at any point in my comment, but no I don't believe they were the good guy in this situation either. The civil rights of minorities in the US at the time were appalling and it's no wonder Hitler looked at that and sought to implement it against the "undesirables" in his country
Not all disagreement is hostile or an attack, I was simply providing a correction to the previous statement that the USSR and Nazi Germany did not militarily benefit each other. If you disagree that their agreements did not have military benefits for both sides, then I very much would like to hear that argument. Obviously once Germany expanded the eastern front, there was no cooperation.
What kind of military benefit did Soviets get from the USSR-NaziGermany Non Agression Treaty? Is it limited to not getting military supplies and personnel consumed and depleted? Because Soviets did not want to work together, but to stave off the threat of Nazi Germany becoming a bigger, deadlier regime (which it did soon enough), only for USSR to pummel their empire out of existence.
In my opinion, a joint agreement of boundaries of a soon to be annexed country would be beneficial to both parties.
This is a rough analogy that doesn't touch on many of the intricacies of global politics so bear with me. If you and your neighbor both have a claim to a plot of land between you, and your options are to work together and come to an agreement, or to fight over it, wouldn't it be beneficial to both to make the agreement?
No, at no point were the USSR and Nazis allied. There were no trade agreements, no personnel support, and no treaty outside of the Pact. However, I think it is disingenuous to say that the USSR and Nazi Germany did not militarily benefit each other.
I am not going to talk about if and but / whatif nonsense. Tell me about practical, historical and real world consequences. Did USSR somehow benefit from or signed the non-aggression pact for hopes of world domination (the goal of Hitler)? If no, why did you say "USSR and Nazi Germany were definitely working together"?
It is disingenuous to say USSR benefitted militarily from Nazi Germany. There were no "winkwink world domination" headgames going on between Hitler and Stalin, which is the foul smell coming off from your comments.
What the fuck? Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the entirety of the Eastern European Bloc? I can tell you have it in your mind that this is me vs socialism or some weird argument. I'm done engaging with this conversation. Foul smell coming off your comments.
He literally WAS a terrorist. He ran the ANC’s terrorist wing. People called him a terrorist and it was accurate.
A lot of people seem the think he was only regarded well once released from prison. I certainly didn't know much about him until then.
Yet Only Fools and Horses was made in 1981, and they lived in Nelson Mandela House. So even in the UK we knew South Africa was on the wrong side of history. And we should know, we wrote most of it...
But Hamas does very textbook terrorist things, seems to me like they are actually terrorists.
So were the IRA...
And yet now here we are with Sinn Fein holding elected positions.
At some point there has to be dialogue otherwise you just keep killing one another.
As opposed to the ANC? Who literally had a terrorist wing run by Mandela?
As opposed to the IDF that’s been terrorizing Palestinians constantly?
It’s terrorists in both sides. Unfortunately civilians are the ones caught in the crossfire.
As opposed to the resistants (including many Jews) during WW2 who were literally called terrorists by Nazis ?