You're viewing a single thread.
It was stolen from them first, that shouldn’t be in the argument
Just be anti-violence
Wut.
Are you confused about Jews being forced to flee/convert to Islam hundreds of years ago or by someone wanting non-violent conflict resolution?
I'm confused why you've injected your "persecuted first" logic into a dispute over basic human rights.
Now I’m confused, I’m advocating for a humane response and saying that the 2nd panel doesn’t help
Without addressing those issues no humane response will be had either way. Although trying to address them doesn't seem to help either. But the "both sides need to stop fighting" line doesn't work for me. One has to take into consideration the power imbalances and systemic segregation involved. Under some circumstances I don't think it is at all immoral to act in violence- I do think it becomes a self perpetuating firestorm that takes on a life all of its own, but that doesn't mean that the adversaries are by necessity equally culpable for causing it, or that they struggle on equal moral footing.
Weird how 'humane response' is exclusive of acknowledging the inhumane actions of one of the parties involved.
Which party is that?
Well it's right there in that second panel... Did you forget what you were complaining about already?
Israel’s inhumane actions was not them returning to the land that was stolen from them
Their inhumane actions are their killings of Palestinians