2 different questions. The 1.5M people of Russian origin (not Russians), are not temporary workers or students. They are citizens of Israel.
Yes, Palestinians have a right to defend their country.
Israel at war
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
Yes, Palestinians have a right to defend their country.
Thank you for being one of the few to state that you believe Palestinians have the right to resist the illegal occupation.
There are also 5 million Palestinians refugees waiting for Israel to honour UN resolutions calling for Israel to accept their Right of Return, along with millions of Palestinians living under Israeli rule without citizenship. Should those Palestinians be given the same chance for citizenship?
Just to clarify for Geno, is this an unqualified right to do whatever they want whenever they want, or there any limits/restrictions.
If there was ever a people that deserved a robust and powerful military, it’s the Palestinian people. They have been slaughtered, tortured, degraded and humiliated by Israel for 75 years. Add ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide to the list of horrors visited upon them.
Last edited:
Palestinians could have had all that since 1948 if they were good at politics. Many reasons why that did not happen.
Limited to defending their territory should anyone attack it. I am not redefining Hamas' actions against civilians on Oct 7 as self defence.
a bit of a problem seems to be that many of them think that their territory is the entire state of Israel from the river to the sea
Any non-citizen within Israeli rule should have basic civil rights, barring the right to vote and may be a few others. But do those Palestinians want Israeli citizenship or do they want Palestinian citizenship?
Debatable, but also immaterial to the situation today.
Israel could also have heeded their own warnings about not settling for the two decades for the last 5 decades.
Really, the occupying power chooses when to end the occupation unless forced by outside actors or resistance.
The settlements are illegal per international law and should not have happened. Netanyahu made it worse.
Why, they declared they attacked in response to Israeli attacks on the Al Aqsa and settler terrorist attacks.
Why do you think that can't be self defence?
(and yes, both Hamas and Israel targeted and killed civilians on Oct 7)
Just as the occupation of Palestine has always been the reason their is Palestinian resistance.
And you think only zionists are allowed to declare they own the land from river to sea?
That’s the old Ziontology chestnut of victim blaming. But, go ahead, spell out those reasons.
How is it self defence when they attacked concert goers or residents of a village who had nothing to do with those attacks?
2 primary reasons in my opinion. Lack of leadership to make realistic decisions. The nature of Israel's conception, which was considered stealing land that was not theirs.
They should have accepted the partition, and then laid claim to Israel and it would have remained a long standing border or territorial dispute between 2 states instead of what it is today.
Reports suggest that Hamas was trying to take hostages and Israel responded with the Hannibal Doctrine, which caused most of the deaths.
Attacking the rave isn't self defence, I agree. And if the settlers were civilians than its not self defence either.
But attacking the IDF on the concentration camp walls and trying to resist the occupation is self defence.
Did Israel put civilians in harms way by putting them too close to Gaza? Were they used as human shields? Were they civilian casualties because of Israeli planning and actions or Hamas targets? That is unclear and should be investigated.
War crimes were committed by both sides that day, both should be investigated.
