Cuba (country right next to the US) aligned itself with the USSR after Castro’s revolution, and the US has attempted to coup them, invade them, murder their leaders, then sink them in isolation and starvation. I’ve always defended that Cuba had the right of self-determination for their own foreign and domestic policy, and that the US was in the wrong for retaliating against them.

It would be extremely hypocritical of me to defend that Ukraine has no right to self-determine whether they want to be in a defensive pact or not, and whether they want to join the EU or not, just because a third country would like them not to do so - just as it’s extremely hypocritical of tankies and campists to say that Cuba had the right to choose their own future but Ukraine doesn’t.

when they’re the ones that pushed Israel for so long that it finally snapped?

I guess Israel has never treated Palestinians unfairly, huh?🙄

If there’s a silver lining to this, is that the people of one of the most populous countries in Earth are going to become far more likely to support policies against climate change.

Spain did successfully negotiate with ETA, and there is no more ETA today. Colombia’s government negotiated with the FARC, and the immense majority of the FARC have gotten peacefully integrated in their country’s parliamentary system.

There, the tourists “violently intimidated one of activists, who is a racialized woman, calling her ‘fascist’, ‘monkey’, telling her to go back to Africa and even threatening to kill her.”

Sounds on par for ethnic supremacists.

Sounds like the BBC’s explanation on their use of language regarding Hamas is relevant here:

John Simpson responded to the criticism in a post on X. “British politicians know perfectly well why the BBC avoids the word ‘terrorist’, and over the years plenty of them have privately agreed with it,” he wrote.

"Calling someone a terrorist means you’re taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.

“The BBC’s job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting.”

He said: “It’s about making sure that all audiences trust the information that we’re giving them, that they don’t think the BBC is coming at this from one side of the conflict as opposed to the other, and that we steer a course though this in very difficult circumstances in which our journalism can continue to be factual, accurate, impartial and truthful.”

The corporation’s editorial guidelines say the word “terrorist” can be “a barrier rather than an aid to understanding”.

They say: "We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened.

"We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as ‘bomber’, ‘attacker’, ‘gunman’, ‘kidnapper’, ‘insurgent’ and ‘militant’.

“We should not adopt other people’s language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.”

Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism. Now, if you use this standard, the Israeli government also uses violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism, therefore the Israeli government is also a terrorist organization. Would David Cameron be okay with the BBC maintaining their neutrality and describing both sides as terrorists?

As much as I dislike Macron, I’ll just remember that he was one of the European leaders that was favoring finding a diplomatic solution the most during the earlier weeks of the war. He’s probably being more opportunistic than brave, honest or committed, but at least you can’t accuse him of being a bloodlusting warmonger.