CNN reporting on some interesting survey results from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah. Seven hundred and fifty adults were interviewed face to face in the West Bank, and 481 were interviewed in Gaza, also in person. The Gaza data collection was done during the recent truce, when it was safer for researchers to move about.
Of course they’re going to support fighting back against a nation murdering their children in broad daylight while the world watches, who could blame them? Many probably didn’t hold those sentiments before this “reprisal” but now…
Eh, that’s not quite what the survey respondents are saying. It’s not as simple as “support war, yes or no?”:
The survey, which has a four-point margin of error (rather than the usual three-point), found that almost three-quarters (72%) of all respondents believe Hamas’s decision to launch its attack on Israel on October 7 was “correct.” Less than a quarter (22%) said it was “incorrect.”
They’re very clearly in favor of the initial attack, not just the response. And it goes further:
In Gaza, support for armed struggle has risen only slightly from 50% in September 2022 (a year before the current war) to 56% in December 2023. In the West Bank, however, support has been rising dramatically from 35% in September 2022 to 54% in September 2023 (a month before the war). This month, polled support for armed struggle reached 68% in the West Bank.
And:
But Shikaki cautions that higher support for Hamas should not be over-stated, at least not yet. As more Palestinians come to terms with the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, so attitudes could change — though that is unlikely to be the case so long as Gaza remains under massive attack.
Important again is how many people have watched videos from October 7 and the differences between the territories. In Gaza, 25% of those asked said they had viewed such videos; and 16% of all respondents told researchers Hamas had committed war crimes. In the West Bank, the corresponding numbers were just 7% and 1%.
Gaza is moving out of denial more quickly than the West Bank, Shikaki says, and that means a reckoning for Hamas. Already, only 38% of Gazans want to see the militant group return to governance after the war.
This is the part that’s Western media doesn’t show: Hamas support and animosity towards Israel predates the October attacks, it’s a big part of why the Israeli government is responding this way.
I think most Palestinians have some sort of animosity towards Israel for a long time due to apartheid.
Holy shit, could we be on the cusp of a unified Hamas government in Gaza and the West Bank?
Probably not. Hamas has been more popular in the west bank for decades. The Palestinian authority is a repressive government. It will continue imposing itself on the people and serving Israel regardless of that. The only way the will of the populace could be instated in the west bank at this time is if the PA’s own security forces rebel. That’s not likely to happen because they go through severe brainwashing and personal humiliation in order to become part of the forces through a program devised by the US and overseen by general Dayton.
Yep.
It’s just they (rightfully) feel like diplomacy won’t work because there’s an obvious mismatch in strength, and the international community has shown not to give a fuck for decades.
It’s a slow genocide, or a fighting chance.
They literally have no other option than sitting there waiting to be killed. Who wouldn’t want to fight back? Even if they know they can’t win.
the international community has shown not to give a fuck for decades.
The international community does give a fuck - or, at least, the west does. They want to see Israel successfully perpetrate genocide - and they would really appreciate it if everybody would shut up about it.
“we’re outsized in military strength so we should pursue war over diplomacy” what?
Israel is never going to respond to Diplomacy. That’s not how genocidal states operate.
What does that have to do with the clarification I inquired about?
You’re acting as if Diplomacy is an option. It’s not. Genocidal states do not respond to Diplomacy. They only respond to bloodshed and slaughter. Did the Nazis come to the table in good faith while they were genociding? No? Then why do you think Israel is any different?
That’s twice you didn’t actually respond to my comment. Now you’re going down a rabbit hole extrapolating what my beliefs are. Do you do this offline? Walk down the street and shout at strangers about tangential topics to things you seem them observing or working on? Ffs I dont even feel that differently than you.
I definitely responded to what you meant originally, even if you think it doesn’t make sense as a reply. Why are they pursuing war when they’re outmatched? Because it’s literally the only option when dealing with genocidal states. What other clarification could you need? Apologies if I gave you too much credit towards having opinions that make sense though.
How long do you think they should try diplomacy for before they realize that it’s not working?
How long do you think they have tried it?
The person I’m replying to seems to be missing a lot of historical context, which is why I’m asking the question and why I’m not going to answer yours without a bit of quid pro quo.
No, I don’t.
I’m trying to interpret this as a response to my post, but it doesn’t make sense. I don’t want to assume incorrectly or misinterpret your response so I need you to clarify what you mean.
30 years or so.
What? My comment is that the above doesn’t make logical sense. What are you talking about?
The cowardly and terrorist attack on civilians Hamas committed on Oct 7th was short sighted and doesn’t make logical sense. Fighting back against a superior force when all other options have been exhausted does make sense. There are a few historical examples of a small force overcoming a superior force, it could happen. Not likely, but again, when there aren’t other options, trying the same thing that didn’t work over and over again for 50 years isn’t very logical either.
This is literally the opposite of the truth, look at how Israel has made peace with every other Arab nation in the area after they came to the table for peace, fighting will just end in more subjugation and loss of territory, that is the story of Israel and Palestine
Israel tries to make peace, Palestinians refuse and fight then lose more land, ad infinitum
The west bank is a lie and doesn’t exist. It’s propaganda made up by Hamas to prove being peaceful with israel doesn’t work and they will slowly steal all your land with guns and bulldozer your houses.
Yea sure, just strawman me.
If you look at how the west bank is treated vs Gaza you’d see that Israel is willing to give peaceful people autonomy.
And I agree Israel is fucking abhorant for the illegal settlements, and they should be punished for it, there is no excuse for them.
The settlers, armed and protected by Isreal, run counter to your claim that Isreal is willing to make peace. The reality is that Isreal wants the land and they’re going to take one way or another. With violence from peaceful people or with violence from people fighting against them taking their land.
If they just wanted the land, peace be damned why’d they give the Sinai peninsula back?
Who said that all they wanted was the land?
And if you think that the Sinai Peninsula was in any way peaceful, you’re missing a lot. It gives the impression that you don’t know what you’re talking about and are only using bullet points that someone else came up with. If not, go ahead and look into it and there you will find the answer.
Irrational deflections aside, Israel is taking land from peaceful people as well as people fighting back. If you were to disregard the excuses given by Israel and look at what has been going on for 80 years, you might see that their actions speak louder than their words. At about 10 times louder and getting even louder.
Edit: line breaks
Why does every post miss the fact this poll is about support for the Oct 7th attack, which is what directly lead to the “murdering their children” part.
Hamas performed a terrorist attack, Israel responded with genocide. Not equitable actions there
When you say a nation murdering their children you’re talking about palestinians slaughtering Israelis , right? Oh no that’s right, even though terrorists filmed everything, it’s only justified since those civilians were evil Jews. https://thisishamas.com/
Never said that, both parties have committed war crimes, there is no good situation out of this. Genocide is wrong
Nice whataboutism, did you learn that in kindergarten?
No, they’re talking about reality, not Israeli propaganda with no sources
Not surprising at all. When you see people around you dying, you either flee or fight… rest is all BS orchestrated by Zionist run media. The core is simple enough.
The poll is about the Oct 7th attack.
Zionist run media. You’re saying Israel owns CNN?
Cooperate media has shareholders. Those are pro Israel. So is the US government that imposes its influence as well.
So the US government tells cable news how to report? So is there a memo to staff?
And the tens of thousands of working class people in these conspiracies. None of them has accidentally shared proof of the secret?
You’re an antisemite. Jewish controlled media is a tent poll of it. You don’t have to like it or accept it, but by definition, it’s what you are. And I didn’t say a word about Israel or Zionism so don’t deflect.
You can call me an antisemite all you want. At the end of the day, I’m not the one who’s supporting a fascist genocidal regime that executes children and even its own people while they’re waving white flags.
Any government tells cable news how to report. That’s the case literally everywhere in the world. What planet do you live on?
BS like the 1200 civilians slaughtered?
I can’t imagine why, considering how marvellously calm, restrained, and mature Israel has been. I mean it’s not like Israel has been indiscriminately bombing children or something…?
No! That’s just what they want! No good will come of it and more people will die! Stay strong, Palestine! The world is with you!
Only one side will win.
Hamas is was and is a popular government. Sad given they haven’t exactly steered Gaza to a good place.
I’m aware Israel is responsible for leveling Gaza but coming after the hostages was obviously going to happen - what’s Hamas’s end goal here?
No it really isn’t that popular, based on polling done just before the Hamas attack.
Like it is among the most supported among Palestinians, but that leaves out the little matter of majority of Palestinians support no one, trust no one. They support no one, see no hope of better future with any path and pretty much are living due to day trying to manage the practical matters of their lives.
what’s Hamas’s end goal here?
Rebellion.
Have you read their charter principles?
I don’t think they have
Noone seems to read anything here “anymore” … last few months, I don’t comment at all without opening the article. It becomes really clear that the worst commenters are not
I find it challenging to navigate comment sections on this topic.
Firstly, Israel has the right to exist and defend itself against terrorism.
Secondly, Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. There is no justification for supporting such a group, just as you wouldn’t sympathize with ISIS or the Taliban.
What we can agree on is that Israel’s current right-wing government, spanning the past 20 years, has implemented policies criticized for creating an apartheid-like situation for Palestinians. The support for radical settlers and resulting violence against Palestinians is a legitimate concern.
It’s crucial to separate criticism of the Israeli government’s actions from questioning the right of Israel to exist. Criticize the policies, be concerned about the treatment of Palestinians, and advocate for a two-state solution that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. Removing religion and right-wing politics from the equation could pave the way for a more equitable and peaceful coexistence.
Israel has the right to exist
Did they have a right to exist when they stole land and only got control over it after multiple wars?
Feels like zionists are working overtime to craft any argument that diverts attention away from their colonization.
Zionism is religious nationalism. It is the belief that Jews are entitled to the land of Israel.
Seems like you have no problem with the dozens of Muslim countries who have expelled every single Jew out of them, but have a problem with Jews claiming a right to live safely in the land they’re indigenous to.
What are you talking about with “indigenous to”. Israel is a colony. It was created through the removal of the indigenous people.
There have always been Jews in Israel/Palestine and 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs, the only Arabs that were removed were the ones who either didn’t want to leave with Jews around or the ones that attacked them in 48, and lost.
Only in your head are Arabs the only indigenous inhabitants of this region lol.
You are conflating Zionists and Jews. Fuck all the murderous Israelis. Most people don’t care if they are Jewish or not.
Defensive wars. You just don’t want any Jews there big dog.
Acknowledging Israel’s right to exist doesn’t negate Palestinian rights.
While the establishment of Israel was rooted in the need for a Jewish homeland after WWII, it’s crucial to distinguish between historical necessity and subsequent political actions. The shift toward right-wing Zionism has influenced policies, but blaming the entire state of Israel and Jewish people in general oversimplifies a complex history.
Don’t get me wrong: religion should be out of politics, and this unnecessary war should get to a full stop. Attacking the right of people to form states (that applies for Palestinians and Jews) is not a solution to this conflict. It only ends in more death and more wars.
Acknowledging Israel’s right to exist doesn’t negate Palestinian rights.
Americans said the same shit about squatter’s rights and manifest destiny.
but blaming the entire state of Israel and Jewish people in general oversimplifies a complex history.
There you go trying to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Nothing is wrong with “Jewish people in general.” Zionists, however, are on par with Nazis because they believe Jews are entitled to the land of Israel just like Nazis thought the Aryans were entitled to Eastern Europe.
Zionists are trying to solve their Palestinan Question with genocide just like Nazis tried to solve their Jewish Question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question) with genocide.
You, presumably a Zionist, get mad whenever these facts are presented because you do not like your religious nationalism to be exposed for what it is.
Zionism is the new Nazism. Treat Zionists as you would treat Nazis.
Israel has killed more civilians in 2 months than Russia has killed in 2 years, to put things into perspective.
Once again, my entire post opposes religious fanaticism, such as Zionism. And as well of atrocities of this conflict and an apartheid state created by Israel right wing politicians
Observe how many individuals, both here and across the internet, misunderstand the entire conflict, erroneously attributing atrocities committed by both sides to Jews in general. This is antisemitic and has no place in this context.
Both Palestinians and Jews have the right to peacefully share their country. Therefore, support the PLO instead of a terrorist organization like Hamas, which receives funding from Iran - another fanatic religious state.
Israeli jews are indigenous to the Middle East, many expelled from their homelands in places like Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen. Your claim of “colonialism” (the word you’re looking for here) may be a common view in the West, but it’s an outright misconception.
The wars you’re talking about: the big ones in 1948 and 1967 were started by groups of Arab states attacking Israel for declaring their independence. Israel defended itself.
Most importantly, October 7 of this year was an absolutely brutal bloodbath perpetrated against women, children, elderly people – civilians. Twenty-year-olds dancing for peace. Residents of left-leaning Kibbutzes, many of whom were outspoken supporters of Palestinian rights. Members of Hamas and other Palestinians streamed across the border and shot civilians, beheaded them, lit their houses on fire, killed their children with grenades, tied women and girls to trees and raped them.
The next day, before a single Israeli bomb had fallen in Gaza, there were demonstrations in the West against Israel.
But why does Israel have a right to exist? It’s not even 80 years old. That land was taken from the Palestinians, so it seems to me that the Palestinians have more right to the land than Israel does.
The answer to the conflict is definitely not genocide of either set of people and Hamas is certainly not going to stop their genocidal goals.
But no state has a “right” to exist, certainly not one that’s less than 80 years old and which stole and is still stealing land from another group of people.
You are asking a philosophical question, but the original justification for the creation of Israel is no longer satisfying with modern sensibilities.
-
The Ottoman Empire fell after WW1, after siding with Germany and losing. Turkey was strong enough to establish an independent state, but the southern part of the Empire was weak and without effective government. As such, it fell under the Mandates of France and the UK.
-
A Zionist movement had already formed in the late 19th century to basically reunite the Jewish diaspora in their long-ago historical homeland. After the Holocaust of WW2, the UN decided to create the State of Israel in Mandatory Palestine as a refuge for the Jews. The area was chosen for obvious historical reasons, though of course the Jews hadn’t had a state in the area for a very, very long time.
Philosophically, this is unsatisfying because it is based on old ideas of Great Power politics, imperial colonialism, and religion. Now, before anyone jumps in and starts railing against European imperialism, let’s remember that the Ottoman Empire was every bit as imperialist and prone to genocide as any other empire.
As philosophically unsatisfying as the reasoning behind the creation of the State of Israel seems today, Israel’s existence is now a well-established a fact on the ground. Of course, a fact on the ground has to be defended from challengers, which Israel has successfully done many times now. It has also earned the support the United States and many others. Even among its former enemies in the region, Israel has earned respect and a desire for normalized relations.
Do the Palestinians have the right to armed resistance? Sure, war is always an option, but victory in war is not given. It has to be taken by force. Ultimately, the right to exist is based on your ability to defend yourself. The State of Israel may only be 80 years old, but it has proven itself capable of defending its territory.
Are the Palestinians capable of taking back and defending territory? No, they are engaged in insurgency and guerilla warfare. This is a fine tactic in certain circumstances, such as Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc., but it’s ultimate success is predicated on wearing down the morale of an occupying force so that they will leave. It doesn’t work when the “occupying force” is on their own soil. Sure, Israel can be brought to the negotiating table to withdraw from the occupied parts of Palestine, but they’ll only do that in exchange for true guarantees of peace. Most of the world sees this as a necessary compromise, which is why Palestine remains as it is: occupied and awaiting final resolution. Palestinians have never accepted that they were beaten. Continuing with armed resistance is no doubt satisfying for many people, and a source of pride for Palestinians. Histories all over the world are full of stories about glorious resistance against impossible odds. However, it is also why tens of thousands of Palestinians are being killed right now.
-
The origin goes back to, no surprise, the British. Some politicians thought it would be good to grow their influence in the region, where they currently had none. Zionists wanted their own state there, and these politicians thought a growing Israeli population would give Britain more influence like they wanted.
The Zionist desire for a Jewish state is rather interesting, because there’s arguably some similarities to Palestinians. There was a pogrom against Jews during the years of the Russian revolution, and it led a prominent Jewish thinker to opine that Jews would never see peace nor be respected unless they had their own state. The original desire was born from wanting to be free from discrimination and violence.
Unfortunately, there was a cultural “enlightenment” at the time as well, and this gave rise to an extremist Zionist way of thinking. They warped the original intent of wanting a Jewish state, and here we are today. Zionist groups would go on to commit terror attacks in Mandated Palestine.
Circling back, does Israel have a right to exist? I would say no – but the Jewish people (completely separate from Israel) deserve to live in peace and with dignity. Just as the Palestinians deserve to live in peace and with dignity. And much like Zionist terrorists taking that pure desire and using it for their own ends, you have Hamas taking advantage of Palestinians and their anger.
It feels very hopeless at this point for the Israelis to recognize that Palestinians are like them, violently discriminated against in the past; and for Palestinians to recognize that Hamas is no better than the Zionist terrorists of the past.
Great post that really highlights the nuances of the situation with a satisfying conclusion.
I don’t know if I’d get the conclusion satisfying necessarily. It’s rather hopeless. And at the same time, it encompasses human history into a nutshell.
40 acres and a mule after millennia of genocide and slavery across Eurasia came to a crescendo in 1939. Thank the Brits and the West for the location and the borders. There were other options like an adjacent sister state to Liberia. The Jews didn’t make the decision in which. The imperialist colonisers at the time did… you know… only the haves can give anything to the have nots, bc have nots cannot jut decide to have…
Worst case… the West thought it was a disposable enough place to spare the expense and/or Western military outpost
Best case… centuries of friendship and living together between Jews and Muslims sounded like a good place… we did flee to the levant from European fascism, which would validate it sounded like a good idea at the time. (Unfortunately the Brits said there was no room and shipped the Jews back to Nazi Germany to die, but that’s another story)
A right wing minority party is waging ethnic class war right now. This is a problem for EVERYONE on earth except that party. Also, a powerful terrorist organization with philosophies of genocide controls an apartheid state’s pseudo sovereign government and commits terror acts on Israeli Jewish humans. Whether Bibi fed them or not, Likud aren’t the ones suffering personally.
Rights are for people, not countries. Israel is a European neo colony. Its existence stands on the same moral ground as French rule in Algeria.
Jews are indigenous to Judea which is in the current west bank, what are you talking about.
Let’s give southern Greece back to Sparta cause it belonged to them thousands of years ago. Same logic as Israel’s founding. It’s a genocidal European settler colony in the Middle East, no different than any other.
I support the decision to go to war with Israel, too. The entire planet should be at war with Israel - and it’s benefactors in the west as well.
I doubt that a war of “the entire planet” against Israel, EU and US would improve anything, but what do I know?
What else is one supposed to do with an evil empire other than to wage war on it?
If your solution is to start World War 3, literally any alternative plan is better.
Hence, my alternative plan: I suggest planting trees and gardening fruits, vegetables and leguminous plant.
Will it solve anything regarding those conflicts? I don’t know.
But as you have said, any plan is better.
Not attacking a country with nuclear weapons because of what they’re doing is a lot more rational than attacking that country. But maybe you want to die of radiation sickness. That’ll sure teach Israel!
So as long as they have nuclear weapons you’ll just allow them to do anything they want?
How liberal of you.
I think the rest of the world should simply stop supporting Israel. No need to attack it, just let them fight their own battles.
9/11 literally only happened because of American support of Israel. It happened because most Americans were supporting Israel without even knowing it. The recent attack by Hamas brought the Zionist agenda and its victims back into the public spotlight. This is many people’s first exposure to what’s really going on in the Middle East, and Zionists do not like that.
Surely this would wipe out all the violent bastards without hurting any Israeli civilians, nor would it lead to increased violence against Jews by idiots who can’t separate Jews from Israel. /s
All you’d accomplish is changing the power dynamic, but nothing else. And while that might feel good at the time, 50 years from now we’ll have this conversation again, where the civilians caught in the middle of the conflict have been born into nothing but strife.
There’s a reason why an ongoing moral in fiction is that revenge is bad. Violence begets violence. Unfortunately, I just don’t see how this conflict can reach a resolution without continued violence. Nonetheless, there’s no need to egg it on.
Violence begets violence.
The violence has already been “begat,” Clyde. And none of your liberal feelgood handwringing is “un-begatting” it.
Indeed, when someone says “violence begets violence”, that usually means there has already been violence, hence the whole “violence begets” part. You’re literally agreeing with me.
I also agree with you that handwringing does nothing either. My whole point is that violence accomplishes the same thing as handwringing – nothing. Violence is just bread and circus to distract from anything productive.
By the way, do you actually have a definition of liberal you can refer to here? Or is it just a catch-all term for anyone you dislike and disagree with? Because it certainly seems like the latter, which makes it a very empty insult.
You’re literally agreeing with me.
No, we’re not, because…
My whole point is that violence accomplishes the same thing as handwringing – nothing.
Riiiiight… if we just sacrifice a million more to the mass-murderers they’ll grow tired off it and leave peacefully, is that it, Clyde? Is that your plan?
Why don’t you lead by example and put yourself up for the chop?
By the way, do you actually have a definition of liberal you can refer to here?
The guiding principle of moderate, centrist and liberal politics is acquiescence to the status quo.
It is, by default, the most cowardly, self-serving and privileged form of politics one could ascribe to.
As MLK himself wrote:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice;
So no, Clyde - I will not be providing you with a description of the politics you should have no problem recognizing yourself.
Riiiiight… if we just sacrifice a million more to the mass-murderers they’ll grow tired off it and leave peacefully, is that it, Clyde? Is that your plan?
The guiding principle of moderate, centrist and liberal politics is acquiescence to the status quo.
Let me get this straight. Nonviolent solutions – once bombing the shit out of each other for the 50th time doesn’t work – is just liberal bullshit and trying to preserve the status quo, prioritizing order over justice…
As MLK himself wrote
… And you use a quote by one of the most famous nonviolent protest advocates in history to try and prove that?
I think very clearly, MLK is not referring to using and promoting nonviolent methods as the problematic behavior of the white moderate. Considering, you know, how he promoted nonviolent methods.
Allow me to quote MLK in kind:
Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself.
I believe this is the “liberal handwringing” you were referring to earlier?
So kindly explain this contradiction – is MLK a “white moderate liberal who is devoted to order over justice”? Did MLK follow the “most cowardly, self-serving, and privileged form of politics” and acquiesce to the status quo?
Or, is it possible that you’re letting your anger get the best of you? It’s completely sensible to be enraged about this, but you’re letting your anger turn you into a warhawk.
Let me get this straight.
So that’s a definitive “no” on sacrificing yourself, huh?
It’s easy to expect others to sacrifice themselves “peacefully” if you know the blood won’t be soiling your porch isn’t it, liberal?
Do tell… why do you think MLK (who was no less hated by the powers that be than Malcolm X) was packaged and sold to you after his death as some paragon of “nonviolence?” Does it perhaps have something to do with the fact that liberals love the idea of “nonviolence” because it poses no threat to the status quo?
Do tell… how could the colonialist slaughter perpetrated by the Nazis and their European helpers in the Soviet Union have ended “nonviolently?”
How could the indiscriminate mass-murder that the US rained down on SE Asia have ended “nonviolently?”
We both know the answer to that - the difference between us is that you appease the mass-murderers with your “nonviolence” because you are perfectly fine with sacrificing people to the colonialist death machine as long as it doesn’t affect you.
I, on the other hand, don’t.
The article on MLK is genuinely interesting and informative, but the author fails to actually prove their point. MLK saw riots as an inevitability, and he explained why they happen, but he never went beyond that. MLK says that if you sum up all the wrongs committed, the white colonizer is still the more guilty. That’s the last direct quote however. The next claim by the author is completely unsubstantiated:
“If it is violent to take that which does not belong to you for the thrill of, even briefly, imagining yourself on even ground with your oppressor, then King was concluding there was to be no hope for nonviolence. Perhaps not then, perhaps not ever. Martin Luther King, at the end of his life, was coming to understand the restrictions of nonviolence as a weapon against a violent oppressor who shows no moral compass.”
In none of MLK’s words does he say there is no hope for nonviolence. The author is making a massive extrapolation. I’m happy be proven wrong if you have any direct quotes from MLK where he recants nonviolence and promotes violence.
I must say though, it is quite interesting for someone so opposed to colonialism to harshly lecture a descendant of the colonized. My grandparents were born as British colonists. My heritage is of a proud culture who has their valuables stolen by the British – and that are currently still displayed in British museums.
So no, I’m not going to sacrifice myself. Colonizers have taken more than enough from my family line. I will not deign to pretend to know your background, so this may or may not apply to you – but I find it rich when white “leftists” who are so deadset against imperialism have no qualms about lecturing and whitesplaining to nonwhite people. A bit ironic, don’t you think, for a supposedly anti imperialist to insist they know better than a nonwhite descendent of the colonized?
I don’t know which side of this equation you’re on, but it’s apparent that the white leftist in a situation like this is more similar to their colonizing ancestors than they’d like to admit. Either you’re like me and you’re already well aware of this from so called liberals… or you have some soul searching to do.
