But it doesn’t. If they started a genocide against Israel, they’d no longer be the oppressed but the oppressors. And therefore they’d have no “resistance” to justify such a thing.
In any case Palestine doing a 180⁰ and becoming the genociders is a ridiculous line of thought with no purpose.
Killing every Israeli to stop genocide is not resisting the genocide?
Sounds like resistance to me.
And this is what you said:
Resistance by Palestine is valid in any form given it’s position.
It’s not my fault that you made an absolutist statement. It’s yours. In any form includes genocide.
(Also, killing every baby in a maternity ward, whether you stomp them to death or not, is also a genocidal act. You already said you wouldn’t condemn that.)
We’ve reached an impasse in which you seem to be solely interested in arguing about semantics regarding hypotheticals with no basis in reality whatsoever. This conversation is going nowhere and has no point.
I can’t help where your logic leads.
But it doesn’t. If they started a genocide against Israel, they’d no longer be the oppressed but the oppressors. And therefore they’d have no “resistance” to justify such a thing.
In any case Palestine doing a 180⁰ and becoming the genociders is a ridiculous line of thought with no purpose.
Killing every Israeli to stop genocide is not resisting the genocide?
Sounds like resistance to me.
And this is what you said:
It’s not my fault that you made an absolutist statement. It’s yours. In any form includes genocide.
(Also, killing every baby in a maternity ward, whether you stomp them to death or not, is also a genocidal act. You already said you wouldn’t condemn that.)
We’ve reached an impasse in which you seem to be solely interested in arguing about semantics regarding hypotheticals with no basis in reality whatsoever. This conversation is going nowhere and has no point.
Funny how you were fine with talking about the baby-stomping hypothetical. Which would also be genocide. And which you said you wouldn’t condemn.