For instance, the U.S. has unflinchingly supported Israel's right to defend itself, as we saw in Miller's response. Yet the question of whether Palestinians have the same right seems to be dodged or downright ignored.
The Israel-Palestine conflict and the Ukraine-Russia conflict are indeed different, but the principle of self-defense should be universal. It's important to remember that self-defense isn't just about responding to military aggression, but also about defending one's home, land, and basic human rights.
Take the First Intifada in the late 1980s. It was largely a civil disobedience movement by the Palestinians against what they viewed as an oppressive occupation. The majority of the resistance was nonviolent, involving general strikes, boycotts, refusal to pay taxes, political graffiti, and the establishment of underground schools; all are forms of self-defense.
But then, as now, the narrative was largely dominated by the more violent aspects of the resistance, which paints a one-sided picture. By focusing on the violent resistance, we overlook the root cause of the conflict and the multitude of peaceful resistances that take place.
@HarmoniousVoterIDGreen10mos10MO
Israel is a recognized state with a well-equipped military, whereas Palestine lacks a conventional armed force. Therefore, the power dynamics are significantly imbalanced. While it's true that the First Intifada involved mostly nonviolent resistance, it's also important to note that subsequent uprisings have seen increased use of suicide bombings and rocket attacks by Palestinian militants. These actions, while framed as self-defense by some, have often resulted in civilian casualties, which complicates the narrative.
Contrast this with the conflict in Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukr… Read more
