Yes, again, they knew that Netanyahu would brutally and indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of people. And Netanyahu could have avoided that cunning trap by simply…not doing that. But he did. Because Netanyahu is a racist extremist who isn't just willing to "accept" a high exchange rate, he is eager for an excuse to inflict such death and misery on Gazans that they leave or are wiped out.
It is wild to suggest that the Palestinians are somehow in the wrong because they won't just quietly accept all of the land that has been stolen from them. And that if they did, the people stealing the land would grow tired of stealing it. You would never accept this if somebody started squatting in your home, for example. Nor would you believe that the squatter would satisfy themselves with one room if you stopped fighting for your home back. As for those IDF soldiers, I'm sure some Nazis hated guarding the concentration camps too. Forgive me if my sympathies don't lie with them.
Moving on to Israel's borders, again, you're misinformed. Israel has never officially defined its borders. Because doing so would put an end to its expansionist ambitions. The borders recognised by the international community are the 1967 borders. And Israel have already expanded beyond them. If Israel withdrew to these borders tomorrow, the overwhelming majority of the dispute would be settled. But Netanyahu has repeatedly refused to do this, in open violation of international law.
Nat Turner's rebellion was obviously never going to overthrow slavery. He had a band of six men for God's sake. The local militia was around 3000 men strong and heavily armed. Turner knew this. He hoped to escape to a nearby area of swampland where he believed he and his men would be able to hide out indefinitely. But they never made it there.
And actually, the conditions that Turner specifically was held in were arguably preferable to the conditions many Gazans face. As I mention in the article, by the stands of the time, the slaves in Southampton County were well treated. Turner in particular. And more to the point, if you'd asked the slaveowners at the time, they would have thought they were being very reasonable as they pointed to how kind they are to the slaves and how brutal and savage Turner's massacre was. And they'd have argued that their response was perfectly reasonable given that Turner had literally murdered babies in their cribs.
You're missing the point because you can't get past the advantages of hindsight and your inability to truly understand how it feels to be living under occupation. Your morality here is based on all of your privileges as a free man living in what, for millions of people in the world, is unimaginable wealth. And all of the knowledge we all have that slavery was wrong. But in real time, you forget that these issues weren't as simple.
In 100 years, people will look back on this moment in history and it will be simple to them too. And they'll wonder what was wrong with the people who defended it.
