They've killed about a million Russians so far, and held the invasion a few hundred km from their border. I'd call that something they can do about it.
They have the luck ("luck") of the entire first world funding them to defend against Russia, instead of Gaza where it's 100% the opposite, so they're not in the horrifying situation the Palestinians are in. Which I'm sure frustrates Russia to no end.
For the Israelis, it's working out great. They allow just enough violence to happen to justify "retaliation," i.e. doing what they wanted to do anyway, which is seize land and kill Palestinians.
I highly doubt that it would work well for Russia though. I mean, the Ukrainians will never agree to anything like this, the only reason it even works in Palestine is that Israel has tons of money/technology support from the first world to do whatever they want on the ground and the Palestinians have 0. In Ukraine the equation is 100% the opposite.
It's pretty clear that this is normal Russian strategy of talking gibberish with a straight face to distract and cause commotion. No one aside from a few dozen idiots on Lemmy actually believes that rejecting imaginary deals like this makes it Ukraine's "fault" that this is happening because Russia "wants peace." I think the whole point is just to degrade the concept of diplomacy as a useful activity, in favor of bullets and bombs which are more Russia's wheelhouse historically.
Yeah, you broke the code.
Can't imagine why any Ukrainian person wouldn't be on board for that. "Peace!" That sounds great, why don't you like peace?
(Actually they pretty much did that in 2014 already. The details were a little different, but absolutely they were organizing ethnic Russians trying to violently seize control of the government in Ukrainian areas, and then they sent the Russian army to "protect" them when the Ukrainians started objecting and shooting back.)
Yeah. A lot of times it's pretty simplistic thinking. Anything that sounds vaguely like you're saying that Israel isn't evil can just get shouted down without getting engaged with, and usually people will cheer for that reaction.
Also people don't like to "lose" internet arguments whatever are the facts of the matter, and me being an unrepentant dickhead during the disagreement definitely doesn't help make it easier to have the conversation. Whatever man
He is absolutely weak. "When small men cast long shadows" type of thing. ☹️ Like I said, it doesn't mean he's not very very dangerous...
Certainly possible, most politicians are, I think. I was just saying that you wouldn't have to be some nutty apartheid-supporter to look at Rasoul's statement and have some objections to it.
Absolutely correct. So anyone who's doing that (or supporting it, making excuses for it, whatever), that's real fucked up and they're a bad person. I should have clarified, that type of broad category I'm fine with.
What I was saying is that someone who has been tirelessly advocating for the US to stop funding Israel, showing photos of the genocide and starvation on the senate floor, introducing votes to defund Israel, showing up at protests, all that kind of thing, if you manage to introduce a category of "Zionist" into the conversation, and then say "Well he's a Zionist so he's supporting genocide," that's a stupid way to reason. That's what I'm saying about broad categories. That type of broad category (using imprecise language to strategically make it sound like someone's supporting something they're not supporting) are useful tools for getting people confused.
On the other hand, he's an absolute fucking moron.
Trump is the fascism vaccine: He is the weakened form, so the system can learn about it, recognize it, and respond with no fuckin' around when it happens for real.
I'm not saying he is not dangerous. The camps are going up right now, and people packing into them every day. I'm just saying compared to what he could have been, we might have some kind of chance. Or I hope so at least.
Makes perfect sense.
Almost as if you can't look for morality or amorality in broad categories, and you need to look at what someone's actually doing (or advocating or whatever), and be specific.
!experimentalfilm@sh.itjust.works
Beastie Boys had one of the first and biggest of the anti-Iraq-War songs, I can't think offhand of one that was more "mainstream" at the time and still explicit and specific about it.
Well I'll be sleeping on your speeches 'til I start to snore
Cause I won't carry guns for an oil war
As-Salamu alaikum, wa alaikum as-salam
Peace to the Middle East peace to Islam
And so on. It might not have been the best (IMO that is "Empire" by Dar Williams, with haunting sadness, historical scope, and irony), but it was big.
Yeah, Reddit is super weird. There are a bunch of rabidly pro-Israel people who have infiltrated its world news communities in exactly the way that some Lemmy people love to imagine that they have done on Lemmy.