That's an odd question. Obviously I'd rather live in the more peaceful side, but that has nothing to do with anything. If you had to chose between living in nazi occupied Paris and Stalingrad, which one would you chose? Does that mean that the Russians made a bad choice resisting the invaders?
For some people, living comfortably isn't the most important thing they can have. Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree?
If Israel wants peace, it shouldn't push for massive colonization efforts and shouldn't use its army to back any colonist living in the Westbank when an armed group finally decides to lay down arms.
If psychopathy is the only way for a group to prevent its own annihilation (whether it happens now or slowly), you will almost always get psychopathic behavior. That's true for everyone, hell in fact even Israel has that embedded in it's very own defense strategy with the Samson option. Which makes the Israeli side even less credible
> Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree?
Actually I don't. It depends on the circumstances and the price. Sometimes getting colonized is the best outcome possible. Especially if the alternative is getting wiped out by way stronger opponent.
US colonized large part of Mexico. Are people there better or worse because of that?
> Especially if the alternative is getting wiped out by way stronger opponent.
That's a personal judgement which fundamentally contradicts the populations' rights to self-determination, i.e. the basis of international law since WWI (famously enshrined by Woodrow Wilson, among others). It's the basis for US support for the independence of Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, Taiwan, etc - all countries threatened by a "way stronger opponent" claiming their territory. US attitudes to Israel are fundamentally contradictory of pretty much all fundamental principles guiding US foreign policies for more than 100 years, they are simply baffling from the outside.
> US colonized large part of Mexico. Are people there better or worse because of that?
Considering the local population at the time (which was itself not even indigenous) was often displaced, I'd say people were worse off. The US also colonized the entirety of Native American land, and people there are definitely worse off. Your principle simply doesn't stand up to logical examination.
Are the people who are descendants of the Mexican citizens who survived the ordeal and now are US citizens better off than current Mexican citizens or not?
As for Poland and Baltic states it has nothing to do with any principles. It's about US weakening Russia. If US didn't have a business in that those countries would have zero support for their aspirations for independence. And they wouldn't be better off under the Russian rule because I'm not claiming it's always the case just it's sometimes the case. And only when you are subdued by more civisationally advanced country.
> I'm not claiming it's always the case just it's sometimes the case
Lol, that's a solid foundation for a logical argument. "Sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit", is a football-manager level of philosophy...
In the end, if we cannot build a coherent foreign policy based on solid humanitarian principles in the third millennium, what hope do we have to survive as a species? If might makes right, sooner or later we'll just nuke each other.
Oh and btw, your lovely american-mexican war reintroduced slavery to slavery-free territories, and was a great success for non-native populations. Colonization tends to be good for colonizers rather than the colonized, unsurprisingly. Obviously this is great, if one is among the colons.
> if we cannot build a coherent foreign policy based on solid humanitarian principles in the third millennium, what hope do we have to survive as a species?
Apparently we can't do that since we are keeping protected a group of people that want to have specific ethnicity dead so much that they put it into their constitution. I'm all for harmonic and humanitarian future, but to ever hope achieving that sworn murderers must be subdued.
> "Sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit", is a football-manager level of philosophy...
But notice it's a practical philosophy that reflects reality. Wishing very hard that it wasn't exactly true won't change it.
> Colonization tends to be good for colonizers rather than the colonized, unsurprisingly.
Why do the Indians own more property in London than the British? Why the British are now a minority in their own capital? Could it ever have happened if UK didn't go on a colonization spree a while ago? In the long run being conquered sometimes brings insane benefits. Circling back to the topic I believe Palestinians would get immense benefits in the long run for laying down arms and joining the Israelis on their terms.
Those "sworn murderers" would be a tiny minority with no support, like any openly-racist group in most societies, if the mainstream wasn't so openly discriminated against by the same folks the "murderers" purposely hate.
Most armed movements in contested territories are historically overcome not by "subduing", but by actually addressing the grievances of the mainstream population who helps them. Look at Northern Ireland: the IRA was never defeated by military means, but they were engaged politically to solve the mainstream grievances that were well-founded: removing most anti-catholic discrimination across society, allowing free movement across the Irish border, and allowing each person to define themselves as Irish if they wanted to (rather than British). Until Israel takes a serious integrationist approach that removes its apartheid-style structures, the mainstream in Gaza will continue to support armed resistance, because they have nothing to lose from doing so and nothing to gain from not doing so.
> notice it's a practical philosophy
No, it's just fatalistic shortsightedness. If you can't imagine a better world, obviously you can't build it.
> Why do the Indians own more property in London than the British?
Because they resisted their occupation, reclaimed their immense land and resources, and fought to get back on a level playing-field. Definitely not because they accepted white-man rule!
(And if you claim that living in London is something to crave, man, you've probably never been there for more than a week :)
Mhmmm, I get what you are saying. And I even agree on a personal level. But I still think that there is a double standard as to who seems to be allowed to use violence in those cases. It's fine to even disagree with Palestinians, and I also understand that Israel has a right to exist at this point.
But the issue is when the west supports fully and unconditionally one side but condemns another for doing the same. It generates alienation and resentment especially when we try to rationalize that support and morally justify it, when in reality we just don't care when our side does it.
Which again, I understand, but the sugar coating is what triggers me.
I think Isreal wasn't given free pass ever. And now, only after it suffered worse atrocity ever, its free pass only lasted few weeks for most people. There's a huge disproportion of strength there and it's natural to root for a little guy. But when you look closer at the conflict and motivations of its participants it's easier. Because one side wants to have peace for itself to thrive and the other wants them dead and gone and it's not shy about advertising that intention at any opportunity.
Palestinians have a right to exist and to defend themselves but what they were doing with crude rockets and attacks wasn't a defence. It was an attempt at genocide. And people only fail to recognize it at such because it was so inept due to Israel defensive power.
Is that why it immediately started colonizing it's neighbor when it could get away with it (as in, when it didn't cost too much to keep the colonies secure)? Also, what other country in the world is allowed to literally push settlements outside of its territory, and then slowly conquer said settlements? Actually,which other country it allowed to colonize anything without international condemnation?
In another country? Probably there's none. In their own country, on territories claimed by some minority as their own? I bet there's a few at least. Something in Azerbaijan for sure.
It's not "their country", nobody (and I mean nobody) recognizes Gaza and West Bank as part of Israel. You could get away with "in their colonies", but then your argument would fall apart again.
