I genuinely do not know who the bad guys are. S lot of my leftist friends are against Israel, but from what I know Israel was attacked and is responding and trying to get their hostages back.

Enlighten me. Am I wrong? Why am I wrong?

And dumb it down for me, because apparently I’m an idiot.

  • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    Up until 1967, the bad guys were Britain.

    Britain seized Palestine from the Ottomans during WWI with the help of the local Palestinians, promising the Palestinians sovereignty in exchange for their help overthrowing the Ottomans.

    At the same time, Britain promised to create a homeland for Jews in Palestine (in the Balfour Declaration), and Jewish refugees from Europe began settling in Palestine. Britain did this because they thought they might gain the support of Jewish financiers for their war efforts.

    The Balfour Declaration was deliberately vague about whether Britain was giving all of the land to the Jews or just some of the land. It was vague because Britain wanted to appeal to Jewish Zionists (who wanted all of Palestine) while not alienating the Palestinians.

    Britain never did divide the land, resulting in two different populations who felt they legally owned the land, one who had always been there, and one who mostly arrived as refugees.

    When Britain left following WWII, a civil war broke out for control of the land. A border was eventually drawn at the line of control (which ran through the middle of Jersusalem), and Israelis declared the new State of Israel, while Palestinian refugees fled to their side of the border or neighbouring states. That was in 1948.

    So, up until then, it’s a messy situation created by Britain, but one which eventually resulted in the land being split (albeit violently), with both Israelis and Palestians having a state, and each having part of Jerusalem. The world accepted this as the new status quo and hoped it would be sustained peacefully.

    That changed in 1967 when Israel annexed the Palestinian lands (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) in the Six Days War. Since then, Palestians have been living under a harsh Israeli occcupation as a stateless people (meaning no citizenship), with their rights and freedoms strictly curtailed. Palestinians have been resisting through a number of resistance movements, usually designated as terrorist groups in the Western media.

    There was a political movement towards peace and repartitioning of the land that peaked in the 1990s, but since then it has been held up by a series of right-wing governments in Israel. Meanwhile, Israel has been aggressively building Jewish neighbourhoods (called settlements) in the formerly Palestinian lands of the West Bank.

    So since 1967, Israel has pretty clearly been the bad guy.

    The terrorist attack that killed 1200 young Israelis was horrific, and we should all hope nothing like that ever happens again. But the root cause of the attack was Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The way to prevent future terror attacks is to end the oppression of the Palestinian people.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      14 days ago

      while Palestinian refugees fled to their side of the border or neighbouring states.

      Technically not incorrect, but too much passive voice. Palestinian refugees were expelled by Israel, either by being directly told to leave or die or through massacres.

      The terrorist attack that killed 1200 young Israelis

      Another correction: The attack that killed 1200 Israelis, 33% of which were legitimate military targets and 66% of which were civilians. Don’t let Israel trick you into thinking Hamas just entered, killed a bunch of civilians and left, because that creates what they consider justification for their genocide.

      • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        14 days ago

        Also do not forget that on 10/7 Israeli helicopters were firing on civilians and the state censors have been covering this up. There are attempts to ban Haaretz, a friendly mouthpiece for state interests, because they have been reporting on this.

      • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        Another correction: The attack that killed 1200 Israelis, 33% of which were legitimate military targets and 66% of which were civilians.

        I never said they were civilians.

    • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      There’s something else I want to mention.

      In 1947, the UN attempted to sort out Britain’s mess by creating a “partition plan” in which the land would be split between a state of Israel and a state of Palestine.

      Though adopted as a UN resolution, it was never implemented, and the aforementioned civil war broke out instead.

      I just mention this because I find a lot of people are under the misimpression that Israel was created by the UN in 1947 as some kind of compensation for the Holocaust, and that’s not what happened.

    • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      14 days ago

      Nice of you to gloss over the fact that the 6 day war was an attempt to annihilate Israel’s existence…

      • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        14 days ago

        Israel started the six day war by striking its neighbors. It wanted that war, it knew it had dedicated sponsors that would back them up.

        PS Israel, as an apartheid ethnostare premised on settler colonialism, should not exist. The “state” of Israel should be abolished and replaced by a non-apartheid, non-ethnostate that includes all of the people and guarantees a return of stolen homes and land.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    The good guys are the citizens who want none of this.

    The bad guys are the citizens who want all of this, and the military personal behind the weapons, and the generals calling the shots.

    Same as it ever was.

    Edit: Lemmy.ml disagreed and nobody was surprised 🙀

  • molave@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    14 days ago

    The good guys are aid workers and Palestinian and Israeli civilians who do not like the conflict.

    • Naich@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      14 days ago

      💯 this. The people doing the kidnapping, murdering, and genocide are the bad guys. The people trying to help are the good guys.

  • TheBananaKing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    14 days ago

    Okay:

    In 1948, just after WWII, the UK decided to carve a chunk out of Palestine and create a new state there, called Israel - as a Jewish homeland that would take all the refugees that the rest of Europe didn’t want to deal with.

    Palestine was not happy about this - the land was taken without their consent, a great chunk of their country just taken from them by decree, backed up by a still highly militarized Europe.

    Over the following decades, Palestine tried several times to take their country back, and each time got slapped down (since Israel had vast backing from UK/USA/Europe, both from postwar guilt and because Israel had a lot of strategic value as a platform from which to project military power in the middle east).

    Cut to today, and Israel has expanded to take virtually the entire area, apart from some tiny scattered patches of land, and the Gaza strip - a strip of land 40km by 10km, containing most of the Palestinian population, blockaded by sea and land by the Israeli military.

    Israel also runs an apartheid regime very similar to the old South African one - Palestinians have very few human or civil rights, generally get no protection from the Israeli police or military, while being treated as hostile outsiders that can be assaulted or have their land ‘settled’ at will by Israelis.

    It has been decades since Palestine has had any kind of organised military, and it’s also not recognised as its own country by most of the world, so there’s virtually no way for it to push back, or to call on assistance.

    In a situation like that, the only recourse is guerilla warfare, which often descends into (and is exploited by bad actors as) terrorist attacks. It’s a damn good way to farm martyrs, and this hugely serves Israel’s ends, since it can keep pointing to terrorim as justification for their ongoing oppression. Israel in fact provided a great deal of ongoing funding for Hamas, while blocking more moderate groups.

    Back in October, a small organised group raided across the border from Gaza into Israel, killing about 1200 people and taking a couple of hundred hostages.

    In response, Israel has killed over 40,000 Palestinans in Gaza - mainly women and children - systematically destroying the city’s infrastructure, water, power, food production and distribution, hospitals, universities and schools, bombing refugee camps and destroying the majority of all housing and shelter in the area. It’s also bombing humanitarian aid convoys, preventing food and medicine from reaching the people there. The death toll is expected to reach many hundreds of thousands, since people are already starving and there is no medical care available.

    The rest of the world is wringing their hands about the ‘regrettable’ loss of life, while continuing to sell Israel all the weapons and bombs it needs to continue the genocide.

    Fuck Israel.

    • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      In 1948, just after WWII, the UK decided to carve a chunk out of Palestine and create a new state there, called Israel - as a Jewish homeland that would take all the refugees that the rest of Europe didn’t want to deal with

      That’s not what happened.

      Firstly, the Balfour Declaration was in 1917, during World War I. By 1948, the Jews were already living there, and fighting for the land.

      Secondly, Britain never partitioned the land, and never announced any intention to partition the land. (Things might have been very different if they had.) I think you’re getting confused with the UN’s partition plan, which was never implemented.

    • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      14 days ago

      Mandatory Palestine was long before 1948. Zionist settlers were doing terrorism on the indigenous Palestinians for decades by 1948. And with British support.

  • Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    14 days ago

    I just want to briefly make one point because I think most of the important points have been very well covered by others already.

    What’s terrorism and what’s freedom fighters is determined by history. By the same standards that Hamas are being called terrorists, you could easily make an argument that 1910s Irish republicans, black South Africans under apartheid, and British suffragettes (not to be confused with suffragists) could easily be considered terrorists. Innocent civilians were killed by all these groups, but looking back on it today we almost universally say they were in the right, because they were fighting for their groups to receive rights denied to them by the ruling class. Their methods weren’t always as perfectly clean as we might ideally want, but the primary target was always someone oppressing them in some way. And right now and for the last half century+, Israel have been oppressing the Palestinian people.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        The brits set up a giant military garrison in northern Ireland called the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s, and used it to turn nearly the entire population of Ireland into slaves, and project english military might onto Ireland and colonize it for hundreds of years. They have always labelled resistance to their imperialist project as “terrorism”.

        The british army should absolutely be the ones labelled as terrorists, not the ones opposing them.

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          14 days ago

          It is rather ironic that all he fighting the Irish did, blowing UK’s corpo assets turned out to be the most effective one.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        14 days ago

        I actually deliberately avoided mentioning the Troubles because I wanted to bring up cases where everyone today could fairly uniformly agree that we were discussing freedom fighters more than terrorists. Too many today would still say that the Provisional IRA were the bad guys (or at the very least that they were “as bad as” the other side). But the point I wanted to make was how given enough time, even terroristic actions can end up being viewed on the whole as coming from the “good guys”, if their cause is viewed as just.

        I could also have mentioned American revolutionaries.

  • Goat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    There are no “good guys” in a conflict between religious people.

    Read the excellent Decolonize Palestine website to learn about the vital context that makes Israel’s claim of self defense deeply disingenuous, and to learn about some of the falsehoods about Israel and Palestine that are present in mainstream discourse.

    • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      14 days ago

      There are no “good guys” in a conflict between religious people.

      Religion does play a role in the conflict, particularly over the question of where the border between an Israeli and Palestian state should go (so that holy sites end up on the appropriate side), but I don’t think it’s very useful to understand this as a religious conflict.

      The Jews who moved to Israel in the early 20th century weren’t pilgrims. They were refugees fleeing political persecution. The founder of Zionism wasn’t even religious.

      And Israel didn’t happen because religious Jews enthusiastically got behind the idea of Zionism. Israel happened because Britain got behind the idea of Zionism.

      Because the Crusdaes of the 11th to 13th centuries still loom large in Western culture (Richard the Lionheart and all that), I think Westerners have a tendency to think that the situation in Israel/Palestine is a continuation of those conflicts. But it’s really not. It’s a 20th century creation.

      • dontgooglefinderscult@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        14 days ago

        The first violent Zionist settlers started migrating in the late 1800s, not the 20th century, this is more Zionist propaganda that leaves out the early terror in Palestine that foreshadowed the rest of the conflict. These early terror groups were mostly ineffective, but their eventual dissolution lead to Zionist thought spreading to what are now the top supporters and financiers of Israel. the rest of the comment is spot on though.

      • small44@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        14 days ago

        Arabs leaders was also so stupid, they kicked most of the non zionist jews from Arabs lands in response to kicking out Palestinians after 48 loss instead of trying to make them allies

      • belastend@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        The largest armed force in the gaza strip is deeply religious and the entire reason the support they receive from their biggest ally, the IRR, is religion. If Hamas were Sunni muslims instead of Shia, Iran would remain silent. Just as they were, when their Shia allies in Syria and Yemen started to massacre non-Shia in the region.

    • 1984@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      Where are the good guys in non-religious (scientific) leaders?

      They are all scheming to gain more power and control.

      Humans are just not emotionally ready to recognize where all this leads.

  • Gabadabs@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    14 days ago

    You should look into the history of WHY Hamas formed in the first place. Palestinians have been forcibly relocated and had their land taken since the 40’s. I will say, is there any justification for the destruction and genocide Israel is committing? They’ve destroyed practically ALL infrastructure in Gaza including hospitals, they’ve got snipers shooting kids, targeting UN aid workers. Hamas and hostages are convenient excuses for them to keep doing what they started in the 40’s - killing an entire native population and taking their land.

  • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    14 days ago

    Forget everything you know (or think you know) about the conflict for a second. Now look at what human rights groups, including the UN, have to say about what’s happening in Gaza and Lebanon. It’s called a genocide because it is; it’s really that simple and there are mountains of evidence published by the likes of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and, again the UN. Also to dispell that particular piece of propaganda: they’re not trying to get the hostages back. If they were they’d turn the first ceasefire agreement into a “permanent” ceasefire (there are no permanent ceasefires in this conflict) and end the whole thing. They want to genocide and settle Gaza, so they’re doing that while sabotaging ceasefire negotiations.

    By the way if you’re going to side with the side that has hostages, then you should read up on Palestinian detainees first. Long story short: Israel arrests Palestinians from the West Bank or (until 2005) Gaza for dubious or no charges—which they can do because these places are governed under Israeli military law rather than civil law—and sometimes torture them while stealing years of their life. Part of Palestinian resistance organizations’ raison d’etre is to return those people to their homes, which requires constant action because Israel arrests more Palestinians every day. There were already thousands of those detainees before October 7th and thousands more have been arrested after. Note: We’re not talking about Palestinians who are arrested for legitimate crimes doing their time here; these people were kidnapped as a punishment against Palestinians for existing. If this doesn’t sound like hostages to you, you should do some soul searching and ask yourself if you’re trying to learn or justify your beliefs.

    This probably sounds biased to you, but I took care to only state verifiable, indisputably objective facts here Sometimes things are just that simple. That doesn’t make Hamas good guys; they’re more gray with some legitimate resistance actions and some straight up terrorism, and it’s not always clear which is which.

    Finally, if you want to learn more about the conflict in general and about the conditions that drove Hamas to launch the October 7th attack to begin with, you should see what Amnesty International and other human rights groups have to say on the topic. The long story short is that Israel subjects Palestinians to Apartheid conditions along with a slow-burn genocide to serve their long-term goal of colonizing the whole Palestine and (to their more extremist factions) expand beyond it.

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

    Just count the dead, injured, displaced, starved, and dehydrated on either side. You’ll find pretty quickly the numbers are extremely disproportionate. If that’s a baseline consideration for your judgment then you should think on that.

    • Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 days ago

      I generally agree that the response seems lopsided. However, I also find it odd that Hamas simply hasn’t returned the hostages. This to me signifies two possibilities- they are not actually interested in peace, or they don’t believe that returning the hostages will stop Israel’s destruction.

      Would that appraisal of the situation seem reasonable?

      • finkrat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        13 days ago

        There is a lot more to this way than just the hostage situation - Israel has been in control of Palestinian territory for a long time (they consider it theirs) and they have been fighting with the Hamas organization for years now. This is the single worst escalation of it.

        Hamas doesn’t want peace. The status quo is domination of Palestine under Israel government - erasure of Palestine effectively if they laid down arms and disbanded. They want liberty, and payback for hardships.

        There isn’t reason to believe Israel will stop the attacks on return of the hostages, as they have gone overwhelmingly above and beyond the total damage done by Hamas (even comparing women and children victims vs. the concert raid that started it all) and given Netanyahu’s far right government is at the helm, so your second point has merit.

  • sweetpotato@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    14 days ago

    Depends really. What do you value in your life? What ethical framework do you use? Do you value freedom and self determination, do you value people different from you as much as people of your nationality/race? Or perhaps do you value the Western stability, growth, dominance and wellbeing at the expense of the economic South more? There’s no objective answer, it depends on you and your viewpoint.

    If we do away with the propaganda and misinformation we are left with this question. Because the US and Europe would never support anyone for the sake of them being the only democracy in the middle east or fighting terrorists or whatever. If that were the case the US wouldn’t have been complicit with the dictatorships of the gulf countries or any other of the innumerable dictatorships they have established throughout the years in the world. And they would also not be funding the ISIS or other terrorist groups in Columbia, Cuba, Nicaragua and so many other countries.

    No dominant organisation in the world like the US state would give a significant amount of money(like it does for Israel) for something that doesn’t serve their material interests, namely the perpetuation and/or increase of their power and influence.

    So what do you value? Freedom and dignity for all, or more power for the Western states and corporations (- and whatever religious crap you want to excuse colonising and ethnically cleansing a nation)?

    If you see this, it’d save you a lot of time from arguing about every single event of the conflict. If you see every human in the world as equal and deserving of freedom, then you’d see that Israel and the West is bringing these people at the brink of extinction, torturing, killing, humiliating, starving them, expelling them from their land, destroying their vital civil infrastructure, stealing their land and property for 75 years now. And when you see all this (not from Western mainstream media though), you’d recognise the right for armed struggle against a colonizing entity that Israel is. No civilian casualties are acceptable, but the ones affected in 7/10/23 would have to turn against their government for ethnically cleansing Palestinians, bringing them to that desperate point of retaliation, not Palestinians.

    • bitcrafter@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      14 days ago

      No dominant organisation in the world like the US state would give a significant amount of money(like it does for Israel) for something that doesn’t serve their material interests, namely the perpetuation and/or increase of their power and influence.

      I disagree with the notion that dominant organizations would never give significant of money away in a manner contrary to their material interests. If anything, the opposite is true: if you are dominant, then you have more freedom to get away with acting against your material interests (intentionally or not).

      I think that our treatment of Israel is an example of this. All of the money we have been throwing at them does not buy anything at all, since the Israeli government does not even seem to be that grateful for it but just expects it as a matter of course. They seem hell-bent on bringing the entire region into a war that would pull us in and cause a ton of damage to our material interests, and we have barely any ability to stop them from doing this. Worst, this situation is entirely avoidable because we could, at the very least, put strings on our military aid and then enforce them, rather than just giving Israel whatever it wants and ignoring whenever it crosses any of our supposed lines.

      Just to be clear, I am not arguing that our material interests are the only reason to care about what is happening or to criticize our government’s actions, I am just saying that it makes no sense to just take as given that a dominant organization will always act in its own best material interests in this way.

      • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        Undermining of independent states in the middle east is in the material interest of the US empire. They just disagree internally about how to best go about doing this. A regional war is not directly against US ruling interests unless they think they would lose that fight or if it would shut down the Strait of Hormuz for a long time. The US has not exactly reined in its Israeli attack dog in any meaningful way, which us what they could do and would do if they wanted descalation.

        It’s not in the interests of the wider civilian population of the planet, or even just those in the US, but those things barely register for empire.

        • bitcrafter@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 days ago

          The problem with this reasoning is that instability, whether as the result of undermining governments or regional wars, has unpredictable outcomes. For example, overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran seemed like a great idea to those in power in the U.S. at the time when we disagreed with Iran’s policies, but this decision turned around to bite us when that got overturned. So it is not in our material interests to promote instability, and I think that the current administration knows this, so to the extent it is supporting Israel with effectively no conditions on its actions I think that it is behaving irrationally rather than maliciously.

          • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            14 days ago

            The US Empire barely cares about blowback, they subscribe for a maximalist foreign policy pressure ethos. Like in Domino Theory, they abhor independence lest it coherently spread, and act swiftly and decisively against it like playing whack-a-mole. The ethos doesn’t have to deliver perfect results free of blowback, it just needs to be good enough for the interests it serves. Regarsing Iran, this is why it is co stantly threatened and sanctiobed by the US and its cronies. The blowback was too successful so they are still just doing a maximum pressure campaign and constantly threatening war. They take a similar approach against Syria and Yemen. They took a similar approach against Iraq and likely will again.

            When speaking of material interest and the US state, using “our” can be ambiguous. I am not of the ruling class of the US, and certainly nowhere near the great financiers and imperialists whose interests are the real ones served by empire. So I would never say this serves “our” interests using this kind of logic. Are you of that class? Often actions are taken against the interests of the non-ruling classes and in favor of the ruling class.

            One can make an argument that the citizen US working class is a beneficiary of imperialism, paying far below what they should for imports and having wages propped up by the petrodollar, buy this is challenging to rationalize with the idea that it is simply in their interest to, say, keep Iran subservient to US empire. The public are ignorant to these things and there is no mechanistic connection between their actions and these outcomes except the propaganda appaeatus that manufactures their consent, which is really a top-down monopoly on information that still does not inform them of how this might be in their interest. And even then, it is arguable whether this is more generally in their interest. Undermining the petrodollar might lead to their yolk being removed.

          • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 days ago

            So it is not in our material interests to promote instability

            When hasn’t the US used the british strategy of balkanization, especially in the middle east? Divide and conquer a cornerstone of their strategy, in the ME, africa, south america, SE asia… literally everywhere.

            Mossadegh’s government was actively overthrown by the CIA, then the US supported the Shah and his son, and had strong relations with imperial Iran until they were overthrown in the Iranian revolution. The Iranian people refused to accept that right-wing US-puppet and his brutal regime any longer, and there was nothing the US could do about it.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        US leaders repeatedly tell you why supporting Israel is in the US’s interests: its a giant unsinkable aircraft carrier in the middle east to project power on this resource rich region. The US would never support even another colonialist project with the same values, unless it was in its material interests.

  • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    If you would not have called Rhodesia or Apartheid South Africa the good guys then you should not consider Israel to be the good guys either.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      14 days ago

      I don’t think a lot of westerners realize how highly propagandized and pro-colonialist their media is.

      The US deemed the African National Congress (ANC, the main group resisting apartheid south africa) a terrorist group just like they do hamas now, and only removed Mandela from the US terrorist watchlist in 2008.

      US media is saying all the same things about Palestine’s resistance that they did in the 80s w/ to south african apartheid.