• anicius@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What do you mean? Settlers aren’t civilians they are actively participating in an armed occupation. This applies to tourists of colonial states too. Colonial states hide behind their noncombatant population to justify their atrocities.

      Edit: This is in no way advocating for large scale murder of settlers just a dismissal of their right to be free from conflict.

        • anicius@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What do you mean by participating? Is just living on stolen land enough to deserve death? Even just visiting as well?

          Yes moving or visiting stolen land is putting yourself in harms way because occupied peoples have a right to violently resist occupation. Obviously, a non violent solution would be preferable but the lives lost during armed resistance are largely due to the existence of the occupation.

          That is just the human shield argument, but applied to Isreal.

          The pattern is typically settlers move in, settlers get into a conflict with the native population, and the settler state uses this conflict as justification for further expansion. Settlers are completely complicit in this.

          • batslug@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Obviously, a non violent solution would be preferable

            This post is saying that the violence was good, that is my issue. Like yes Isreal is to blame for it as well, but killing unarmed ppl is bad. It does not matter who they are, why they are where they are, it is bad to kill ppl. who are not fighting.

    • ReaZ@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      If someone steals something from you and then gives it to someone else, is that other person innocent if they refuse to return it?

      • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s the colonialist finders keepers rule. You don’t have to give it back as soon as you give the stolen item to your kid.

      • batslug@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes Isreals occopuation is horrible and directly lead to these attacks. But it is still bad to kill unarmed people, I don’t care if they are settlers, they are still non combatants and should not just be shot in their homes.

        • Vertraumir@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is no such thing as zionist civilian except children. Every settler older than 18 has gone through army training and is combatant

          • CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There is an argument (by which I mean Geneva Conventions) that combatants should be identified as such. They need to carry weapons or wear a uniform (and this is actually why the resistance wears bandanas, this is their uniform).

            However in the case of Occupation, which Palestine is recognized as being under by the UN, another set of laws apply. And I’m no jurist and will probably need to one day still sit down and read through the entire document, but think of this way in an occupation setting… are you not allowed to capture or kill an accountant signing the orders to send Jews to Germany from France because he doesn’t wear a uniform?

            Can you not take out Himmler because Saturday is his day off and he’s at home? You have to wait until Monday otherwise it’s illegal?

            The Nuremberg trials found that “I was just following order” was not a valid defense. Can the accountant say “oh but I was just signing the orders you see, I was not actually engaged in the invasions”?

            I would be very surprised if Occupation law did not take this into account. I mean even in warfare, can you not target the enemy’s barracks at night because they’re not carrying weapons and they’re not in uniform when they sleep?

            So yes, by conscripting everyone into the IDF at the age of 18, “Israel” is digging its own grave.