• TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    My answer still stands. If the US took the 4 billion they give to Israel and instead distributed aid to Palestinians, it would dramatically improve their lives and create the material conditions for their society to flourish. Sanction Israel like the world did South Africa to get rid of the apartheid state. The answer is equality and standard of living.

    Your problem is framing. If we can only frame solutions through violence, then don’t be surprised when violence continues. If it is framed through the lens of improving the material conditions of the oppressed, it solves the need for violence. Happy, comfortable people don’t resort to violence.

    Edit: Something tells me you’re not gonna like my answer, because it doesn’t involve killing Arabs.

      • PersnickityPenguin
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s because the Palestinians were trying to de-Nazify Jordan.

        Give them a break!

        Totes justified. Sheesh.

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        You didn’t write the answer down. Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean it’s not the answer. There are many ways to cross a river, but a bridge is still the best option.

              • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                I do have it. Which is how I know that I should not “love” people who murder innocents.

                Then you don’t really have empathy.

                WHAT. SHOULD. ISRAEL. DO? Just show some love? Grow the fuck up. Give us some actual solutions besides “nothing and love XOXO 😍❤️💛💚💙💜😘😝😜”.

                Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi found the answer. It is peace through love. I still highly suggest you write it down.

                • bastion@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  There is effective love, but chatting about love on the internet without doing anything kinda makes you look naive - and indeed, you likely are.

                  But if you have real love that can survive and contribute, then do it. Get involved. Learn Arabic, spend time in Palestine, spend time in Israel. Get to know people, and work on healing the underlying emotional scars that boil to the surface like this.

                  Until then, I may appreciate your love as ‘nice’, but it’s not meaningful like you think it is unless you also back it up with will and power.

                  It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize, which at the very least flirts with being avoidant rather than loving. But if you love, and this is your calling, go do it.

                  • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    That’s self righteous and unproductive. So, you can only love and show empathy in the places where it’s needed, when it’s needed? How magnanimous. Love anywhere spreads love everywhere.

                • Katana314@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Gandhi’s peace was not non-confrontational. He conducted mass protests, refusal of payment to authorities, and mass exodus from British commerce.

                  Throwing reference to his name as simply a “love of peace” is ignoring the circumstances and actions that lead to peace. Everyone loves peace. The question is what kind of confrontation you accept to achieve it.

                  • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    9
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    That’s reductionist but funny. That would make you, what? A conservative? Let me guess. A moderate centrist liberal? Know thyself.