NoneOfUrBusiness

Yes, that is the point I was trying to make.

I mean, Hitler took inspiration from Manifest Destiny and American actions in the early 20th century, so Americans at the time weren’t meaningfully distinguishable from Nazis on the atrocities front.

It’s a precise term with a very specific definition in international law,

It’s not, actually. At least not that I know of.

I’m counting from the early 2000s when the Israelis were still actually making plausible 2 state solution proposals, even if only rhetorically.

In that case you want the early 90s instead with the Oslo accords.

Since then there hasn’t even been even lip service, as far as I can tell.

There was one more farce after that, I think in 2014.

They always are. Freeing Palestinian hostages/detainees is pretty much at the top of any list of demands by Palestinian resistance organizations. By handing them over they can avoid making any other concessions during ceasefire negotiations and the like.

I get that to westerners “terrorist” is the worst label ever, but terrorism is weak sauce compared to the shit Israel gets up to. “Colonizers” would be a much more appropriate label.

*~60 years. That’s when settlement started.

It’s in the European Broadcasting Area. So is most of the Middle East, but in the region only Israel participates.

I mean, telling people to overthrow their government isn’t a punishable offense.

Details?

I mean, what about him? What did he do?

Get your Hasbara nonsense the fuck out of here, but also that has literally nothing to do with what I’m talking about.

Source?

Given that the founders and early adopters of Zionism were predominantly atheist, that is not the root cause of anything.

There’s a whole protest campaign/revolution going on, so this is far from over one way or the other.

Nope. It’s impossible to intimidate the elites into submission through violence against them; you have to seriously threaten their power. The lesson the Nepalese ruling class will learn from this is to never fall under the protesters (though at this point “revolutionaries” is probably a more appropriate term), not to be better people. There is literally nothing productive about this.

Oh I’m not at all upset about her meeting a gruesome end; it’s the part about deliberately inflicting that gruesome end that I’m complaining about. In your example it’d be an unintended consequence of something desirable (catching the serial killer), which is a whole different story. If the story was instead “corrupt PMs die inside parliament after protesters burn it down” it’d have been a lot more acceptable.

I mean, if she’s committed crimes bad enough to warrant death I’m not gonna object to the killing itself, but still there would’ve been better execution methods than burning her alive. Hanging or firing squad, for example. Reveling in brutality is generally not something you want in a resistance movement.

What isn’t too much, but also creates the necessary drastic changes?

You know, kill or imprison those responsible for the people’s suffering, take or burn their stuff, etc. I’m in no way against violent revolution; I just believe even the worst people should get a relatively humane death when possible. Whether the billionaires and their lackies are killed or not really has no bearing on the end result; it’s the actual seizure of power (or threat thereof) that gets things done.

Immolation is too much, but in general yes.

You seem to be carrying water for the PA, but by all measures they’re even worse than Hamas. At least Hamas resists Israeli occupation; the PA actively supports it. That aside, though, Hamas is the Gazan government; the PA holds absolutely no power in Gaza.