Looking at how Israel events are unfolding right now, and how similar Gaza's narrative (and tactics) are to what Russia has been doing in Ukraine, I am trying to understand what the hell is going on in people's minds.
I am not a historian by any stretch of imagination, but in case of Russia's attack on Ukraine, it was obvious to me, that it's not justified by anything but imperial ambitions for several reasons, among which are:
- You can find (neo)nazi or similarly radical groups in every country, but their percentage is miniscule even compared to how popular they were in 80s-90s.
- Appreciation of Stepan Bandera does not make you a nazi, because he was not one, and saying otherwise is simply not knowing history. Yes, he fought for Hitler, but he had a deal that Ukraine will remain free, and Hitler did not fulfil his end of the bargain and, actually, betrayed Bandera. This does not justify the deal from history perspective, and does not justify sanitization of Bandera, but that does not make him a villain either.
- Russia came to be because of Kiev. Forgetting that and claiming, that "Ukraine does not exist", again, means not knowing your history.
- Claiming, that Russia never started any wars - is not knowing your history.
In case of Gaza attacking Israel, I do not know a lot. I tried finding a simple description of the conflict, but there are nuances all over, there are contradictions, and overall a long history of conflict, as usual. I am not sure I am willing to delve that much into it, not sure I even have the time for it. But even if I assume, that the attack is justified...
How does abducting or even killing civilians makes you right?
In my mind no matter how right you are, how justified your anger is, the moment you hurt someone - you are no longer a victim. If you are saying, that person X has killed Y people, and needs to be stopped - you are correct. But the moment you kill that person X - you become like that person. You become a killer. There is no way around this. Even Dexter from respective TV series never denied the fact that he was a killer despite whatever code, that he tried to follow.
It's the same as with self-defense, you know. Despite what movies tend to tell us, even US laws have a "limit" of self-defense. As far as I understand it is somewhat less strict as in Russian laws, but it's still there. The point of it is that if you kill your attacked at the moment when attacker does not pose any threat - you will still be judged, and punished. Maybe not as severely, but still. Same thing is with these wars: no matter how justified you may really be, the moment you start killing and, essentially, doing the same things, that you claim your "oppressor" is doing - you are no an aggressor, not a victim.
What's worse, in most cases conflict boils down to "we don't like how they live". But why do you even care? Live and let live, you know. I think the same principle should be used with territories, that allegedly want to separate from their original countries: let them. But on one condition: they should never become part of another country. They can be partners with whomever they want, they can replicate laws of another country, if they want, but never be fully integrated with anyone. If they succeed - great, you can become their partner, and benefit from that. Or even learn from them and do similar changes. If not - that's not your responsibility.
Unfortunately, war is too profitable, and there are too many people wanting that profit, so I do not think we will see the day wars will end. At best, people will be replaced by robots, but even that is unlikely, because unlike victims, aggressors will always need flesh.