Comics
This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.
Rules:
1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules
2- Be civil.
3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.
4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine 🇵🇸 . Zionists will be banned on sight.
5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.
Guidelines:
- If possible, give us your sources.
- If possible, credit creators of each comics in the title or body of your post. If you are the creator, please credit yourself. A simple “- Me” would suffice.
- In general terms, write in body of your post as much information as possible (dates, creators, editors, links).
- If you found the image on the web, it is encouraged to put the direct link to the image in the ‘Link’ field when creating a post, instead of uploading the image to Lemmy. Direct links usually end in .jpg, .png, etc.
- One post by topic.
view the rest of the comments
You're right, everybody needs to continue fighting over millenia long grudges. That's what leftism is all about.
I suppose youre the ultimate authority on what is just and unjust?
3000 years ago, those knife-eared bastards double-crossed us, and now none of us dwarves would be caught dead associating with any elf.
You digress
Edit: youre like 5 sentences away from admitting harm reduction is the only way to sort these problems and im here for it.
Absolutely, and the destruction of the apartheid state is the best way to reduce harm.
What does "destruction of apartheid state" look like?
Look at South Africa, for an example.
I wont pretend to know much about South Africa or Palestine/Israel but my understanding is Palistine/Isreal are separate entities so if you were going to use civil disobedience to overcome the conflict you would have to convince the people of isreal.
Which, sounds fine.
That's like saying that the only way to defeat Nazi Germany is to convince the Germans through civil disobedience, because "Germany and France are separate entities."
You're the one who said south africa
Sorry, I thought you meant what you asked, "What does the destruction of the apartheid state look like" and not the entirely different question, "By what means can the destruction of the apartheid state be achieved?"
The effects of the end of apartheid South Africa are the same that we aim for with the end of Israel. Unfortunately, Israel appears to only understand the language of force, and so that is the most likely means of achieving those ends.
So how is "force" harm reduction?
The same way D-Day was harm reduction. This isn't complicated lmao.
I know you're not actually a pacifist since you're a zionist, quit playing dumb.
Im not a zionist. Are you a jihadist?
Edit: if you want the allies to storm isreal thats fine but as you might know, america isn't the world police. Ill stick with that. Should they supply isreal with weapons, no, but make your case to liberals by telling them that they should allow the death/displacement of millions of Jewish people.
You're not a zionist? But literally in the same comment you say that the destruction of the apartheid state of Israel would necessarily mean "the death/displacement of millions of Jewish people." If you don't support the existence of Israel, yet the only alternative to Israel's existence is the death/displacement of millions of Jewish people, then logically that means you support the death/displacement of millions of Jewish people.
Seems kinda antisemitic if you ask me. Like, all I want is for Palestinians to have equal rights, if you want millions of Jews to die that's on you.
That's a trivial naive understanding of the situation but you do you. America isnt storming tel aviv either, so, I guess you have fun playing games in your fantasy world.
All I did was quote you. That's your understanding of the situation. It's not my fault you don't know what the word "zionist" means.
You're the only one who's said anything about this idea too, lol.
Har har. You got it all figured out.
Tell me, what happened on D-day?
Tell me, what happens when isreal is under the rule of an islamic government?
Yes, I do. Zionism means that you support the continued existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish ethnostate, which you obviously do. You've talked yourself into a corner that the only possible way you could not be a zionist (as you claim) is if you support the death of millions of Jews, which you claim is an inevitable consequence of it no longer existing.
A genocidal, expansionist ethnostate was successfully and heroically attacked, beginning the liberation of France.
I already told you. Look at South Africa, as an example. It's not as if wiping an apartheid state off the map hasn't been done before, and obviously any negative consequences that resulted from that change were better than the status quo.
Which do you prefer: a negative peace which is the absence of tension or a positive peace which is the presence of justice?
I do not support isreal being an ethnostate and you wont/cant present me with a path for isreal to integrate with palistine. By your logic youre tantamount to a zionist because you cannot demonstrate how isreal will ever be deconstructed other then by force, death, destruction.
D-day the allied forces attacked a genocidal expansionist state beginning the liberation of France. Who are the allied forces that will liberate palistine?
South Africa was liberated through civil disobedience. That is the South African model.
I prefer likely solutions that can be executed without large human tolls. That and generations long projects that methodically deconstruct oppressive societies and replaces oppression with liberty.
That's idiotic. I support deconstructing Israel through force, therefore, I am clearly not a Zionist. You do not support deconstructing Israel at all, therefore, you are a Zionist. This is very straightforward logic.
The same sort of coalition of the willing. The previous Nazis were so bad they got Churchill and Stalin fighting on the same team.
Right now, Hamas, Ansarallah, and Iran seem like the Zionazis' biggest opponents. Hopefully, in time, more will join in opposition.
You're treating tactics for achieving a policy as inseparable from the policy itself, which they're obviously not.
Pick one. Because if the Zionist entity is allowed to continue existing for the duration of a "generations long project," then there will, necessarily, be "large human tolls," like, virtually every Gazan, if not every Palestinian.
What would've happened if, instead of directly confronting and abolishing the Nazi state through force, people had followed your advice of waiting for a "generations long project" to effect change? How many more millions would've died?
Justice delayed is justice denied. The longer you kick the can down the road, the longer Israel gets to continue with it's genocidal aims freely.
Zionists, they believe in deconstructing palistine by force. Am I wrong, what is it youre really against zionism or Jewish zionism?
Hamas, Ansarallah, and Iran are not liberartors.
South Africa made policy possible through strategy. You're just looking to extend the tit for tat.
You can use the nazi example as a general analogy. It does not translate to a 1:1 anology. Nazi Germany was not being propped up by an imperialist america.
Edit: you can continue to pretend to throw haymakers but if youre through getting toyed with you can go back to the boss and tell him youre wasting resources.
Wtf would "non-Jewish Zionism" even be? This is utterly incoherent, your definitions are completely wrong.
Zionism means supporting the continued existence of a Jewish ethnostate in occupied Palestine. In practice, this means supporting the genocide of Palestinians because that's what the vast majority of Israelis want. But it does not definitionally require supporting further aggression against Palestinians.
Maybe not, but they are literally the only check against Israel's genocide, currently.
Would you say that Stalin was a liberator, btw? Because either way, he sure did a lot to stop the Nazis.
This is meaningless nonsense, you're just stringing words together.
You cant tell me my definition of zionism is wrong then tell me your made up definition of zionism is right.
The South African people used civil disobedience to change the laws of their government and ended apartheid. You're saying isreals government need be destroyed. South Africans did not trash their government, they changed it.
Lmao, my definition of Zionism is not "made up." Here's what came up when I googled "Zionism definition:"
Fucking dumbass, maybe learn basic terms and facts about the situation before trying to weigh in with your ignorant drivel.
No investigation, no right to speak.
Let's keep this going.
https://www.history.com/articles/zionism
You realize that still supports my definition and not yours, right? Where in that definition does it say anything about killing Palestinians, as you assert is part of what Zionism is defined by?
What's the point of telling you to investigate if when you investigate and find proof that you're wrong, you simply keep asserting that the evidence proves you right? Maybe you should just stop speaking entirely, at that point.
Im just demonstrating "zionism" didnt become "zionism" until the jews acted on their belief that they had a claim to some land. Just as the Palestinians believe they have a claim to some land, religious or otherwise. Some guy deemed the Jewish zionism "zionism" from some other meaning just as a Palestinian "zionism" could be claimed.
What does it even matter, youre now arguing that zionism could exist with out the displacement or death of the Palestinian people. How is that wrong in a region strictly inhabited by other ethnostates? Hell, you even argue Iran, an ethnostate, is justified in attacking isreal!
This is utterly insane. That's not what the word means, at all. Zionism isn't "anytime someone has a claim to some land," JFC.
Wrong. I'm arguing that the death of displacement of Palestinians is not part of the definition of Zionism. In practice, that is what it entails. Learn to read.
Iran is not an ethnostate, nor is it committing genocide, and it's "attacks" are retaliation for Israel's unprovoked aggression.
I'm not interested in discussing this further with you until you either educate yourself and can actually defend your views from an informed position, or until you stop trying to attack my views from a position of complete and utter ignorance, where you say such nonsense as "Zionism is whenever anyone claims any land."
What is a "state religion"
What is zion?
Good topics for you to look into, I'm done doing your homework.
Oh I know. A state religion is exactly what isreal has and what you are claiming is an ethnostate.
Zion means jerusalem, the holy land of the jews, which they claim is ordained to them by god.
Your homework assignment is to find someone, literally any one person, from anywhere, of any political persuasion, who agrees with the statement "Iran is just as Zionist as Israel." Literally anyone. I don't care if it's your mom.
When you fail to do so, come back and say, "I'm sorry, @Objection@lemmy.ml, you were right and I was wrong, I clearly don't understand this situation, but I would like to learn more about it from you."
If you reply to this comment with anything other than, "I did find someone who agrees with that statement" or the thing I just said, I will block you.
Bye
Edit:
Sorry, I will respond, honestly.
You're right, there are differences between Iran and Isreal and im not versed enough to know them. So, yeah, and if you think that is what I was trying to communicate then we lost track somewhere.
Our contention seems to be:
You - isreal should be taken down militarily because they are a danger to the people around them
Me - there is no good way to end isreals occupation that wont result in more human suffering
I will concede that if isreal were to be brought down by some act of god youre not going to see me shedding many tears.
Is there anything you will concede?
I will concede that if your assumption that the military defeat of Israel would necessarily mean the deaths of millions of Jewish civilians, then you might have a point. Although, it isn't true, and you don't.
I'll also concede not blocking you, at least for now. But I have no interest in continuing this conversation, regardless.