Yay, a small win. Time to punch left.
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
538 readers
208 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think calling some actions on Oct 7 a war crime is reactionary, early in the war Hamas offered to prosecute and/or deliver to the Hague any of their fighters found breaking the Geneva Conventions if Israel agreed to the same. (Israel did not agree to do the same). But the whole "right to exist" thing is also a slimy question with no answer that makes you look normal, either you are a liberal dog and believe that nation-states have more rights than people or you're a third worldist-maoist-anarchist that thinks the very concept of a border is fascism (in the eyes of the media/voters), it's like 'abolish the police (and divest their functions to other more suited organisations)' getting twisted by reactionaries to mean 'abolish all policing, everything is legal, murder is good now'.
to be clear i didnt say it was reactionary to say that oct 7th was a war crime, it was the “right to exist” part i had an issue with. i dont believe oct 7th to have been a war crime but i understand why someone running for mayor would say that and i understand how they could even interpret international law to come to that conclusion, if their analysis was lacking a lot of material and historical context (ie, if you occupy a people for 80yrs and ethnically cleanse them then lock them all in a concentration camp, and hold a music festival right next to that concentration camp, i dont really see how in that context you can call what happened a war crime)
but again the actual issue i had was, he could have said that and not said israel has a right to exist, even if he claims “as a secular state”, which even that is a liberal delusion. the entire point of israel is contradictory to any claim that it could ever be secular
a secular "israel" without genocide or apartheid would be a completely different country so maybe that's the politically correct to say the modern state of israel doesn't have the right to exist
saying israel can exist as a secular state with equal rights is like saying water can exist as a dry liquid. i think your reading of it being a politically correct way of saying it has no right to exist is a lot more charitable than i'm willing to be as someone who knows nothing about this dude and can only look at his words.
it would just be Palestine. maybe some nagano accords will happen and it'll still be called israel by some losers idk.