• SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    You misunderstand unarmed resistance. You want to shout when raped, as loud as you can.

    The key thing is you can never ever take the offensive and attack israeli civilians.

    It is brutally unfair, but you can never cede the moral high ground, not even for a moment.

    • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      when they attack soldiers Israeli cries about terrorists killing their young babies.

      look at all those “civilians” with military titles that were killed (and bombed by Israel) in Oct7th.

    • Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      The key thing is you can never ever take the offensive and attack israeli civilian

      There are no “Israeli” civilians, it’s a genocidal settler state on occupied territories that belong to Palestinians. If a military comes to your home, vacates you forcefully and murders your family, you naturally have a right to violence against whoever is occupying your house.

    • Doorbook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      No you are absolutely wrong. The right to resist is recognized human rights.

      Even South Africa recognized the Palestinians rights for arms resistance.

      Israel goes around kidnapping people with military force and because media call it arrest it is okay. When Hamas do the same, you think it is wrong.

      The Palestinians have giving away their weapons before and it didn’t get them anywhere.

      your comments are objectively wrong.

      • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        No you are absolutely wrong. The right to resist is recognized human rights.

        Ah, so it’s all fine that Hamas primarily targets civilians then. I guess those women and children on October 7 had it coming - it was their fault for being born Israeli!

        Oh, wait, there was a bunch of international tourists among the victims? Well, fuck them too for coming to Israel!

        The Palestinians have giving away their weapons before and it didn’t get them anywhere.

        When did that happen?

      • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        The South African government supporting armed resistance has very little to do with a moral position. It has more to do with them seeking support from Iran and Russia for their corruption.

        I know it’s not fair. It is brutal and inhumane.

        Israel is committing a genocide Gaza to a degree we have not seen since the genocide in Dafhur.

        My point is one of practicality. What does a violent attack on civilians achieve for the palestinian cause?

        Say a man is in the woods with his family and they come across a wolf. The man attacks the wolf unprovoked and the wolf fights back, but the man is too strong. His only hope is that the family would tell the man to stop, or that a park ranger would notice it and intervene.

        Would the wolf attacking the mans family achieve anything in its favour? Or would that erode his support with the family and the park ranger?

    • DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The key thing is you can never ever take the offensive and attack israeli civilians.

      I mean, I do agree with the fact that civillians should never be attacked, but your “never use violence” part doesn’t hold up. The police and military are valid target to attack.

      I mean:

      • American Revolution
      • French Revolution
      • Xinhai Revolution
      • War of Resistance against Japanese Imperialism in Asia
      • Battle of Normandy, Operation Overlord, and war against nazi germany
      • etc…

      These are all “violence”, but that’s how they won.

      • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Military targets are valid. Not arguing against that.

        Regarding the other conflicts. They had much closer power parity, so they could compete with the opposition.

      • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        This, right here. Lethal or disabling first strikes work as the best defense when the defender is smaller and weaker.

    • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldBanned from community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      No, you want to kill or disabled your rapist and escape if you’re being raped. A person who rapes is saying that they feel entitled to do anything with your body that they want to - including murder, more rape, imprisonment, forced pregnancy. Legally you are allowed to defend yourself. Rip out their throats with your hands. Kick out their kneecaps. Do the world a favor and yourself a favor. Self defense isn’t violence.

      Channel these women:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francine_Hughes

      https://www.wweek.com/news/2016/08/17/a-hit-man-came-to-kill-susan-kuhnhausen-she-survived-he-didnt/