The folks who only know JavaScript and refuse to learn more deserve to be blamed for electron’s (and similar) continued existence, and therefore for excessive resource usage.

Wow, a comment telling that it’s hamas and not Israel who wants Palestinians dead is not downvoted.

Every business? Or do you mean Yemen’s business?

It goes a long way that you are avoiding.

You basically refuse to explain what could happen that would constitute for “bad” or “unwanted” if Navalny is supported.

You refuse to explain what exactly do you mean by right wing (exact bad stuff about it) and instead rely on your readers’ own interpretation to convince them that person should not be supported.

By providing exact example you could be more specific. And I could find some stream piece with Navalny’s point of view on something exact to show you that he would not actually do what you think he would do.

If you still want to avoid exact examples and only rely on those old clips about immigrants then you have no chance of proving me wrong. In his presidential program there was a proposition to require visa from them, and this can’t be viewed as bad. Else you’d have to tell me countries like US/EU are controlled by right wing shitheads already. It’s like telling your readers “hey don’t forget, this guy seems to be at least as bad as your own government, don’t support him”.

didn’t come from Westerners, but rather from Russians who complained

If you read the article and do some research it really comes from either Kremlin propaganda or people not knowing who Navalny really is.

his anti immigrant stance, equating immigrants to „cockroaches“ or dressing as a dentist and making a metaphor that immigrants were a pain that needs to be removed

And? You don’t know that about 70% of Russian population use much more cruel words about immigrants every day? You don’t know that there is a real problem with salaries in Russia that could be affected if Russia required proper visa from immigrants (something that a lot of other countries already do but you seem to not complanin about their immigrant stance)?

If you assume a politician who did and said that much as Navalny towards immigrants will do some real unimaginable shit towards them if he gets power… I think any Russian will tell you that you are wrong.

You pretend like nationalist authoritarianism is a phenomenon exclusive to Russia

Excuse me what? Where did I?

Your situation is not unique and if you support a fascist you get fascism.

1. I know Russia’s situation is not unique. That said, Navalny is unique as a political person still.

2. Surprise, you already have fascism in Russia even without Navalny. And there will be much more as long as Putin (at least) is in power.

Not that I hope that Navalny will at some point will get any power to do anything. But people lose too much when they judge others by single episodes from their past (that aren’t even getting interpreted properly, heh).

And that is how I interpreted it.

Okay let me try it differently. Imagine a perfect clone of Navalny gained full power in your country. You know he is a right wing shithead and will inevitably do what you expect and afraid him to do. Can you list a few things that he will do?

Someone calling you a shithead doesn’t make you a shithead, simple as that.

People not having a slightest idea about what people in Russia would think about what they assume by “right wing” won’t help Russian people at all, they would only confuse themselves.

The reason, though, is that by telling other people who has no idea about how Russia works to note how another Russian person is bad by their standards (also doing no work to actually research and confirm that) will only make it much less likely for any Russian person to be liked or accepted by the rest of the world. Not because they are really that bad or stuff, but because of only high probability of people getting misled by crap articles and Kremlin propaganda and then refusing to do proper research.

That’s not true and it wouldn’t matter even if it was true. You got to know a lot about Russian current culture to understand the specifics.

It’s useless to apply current standards of developed countries on Russia in order to approve some politician. Russia needs to change before that could even work. I imagine Navalny could’ve been one of drivers of that process.

Also Amnesty reversed that decision since. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/05/statement-on-alexei-navalnys-status-as-prisoner-of-conscience-2/

So there is a side if good here?

When Lithuanians tell them to go to Russia if they love it so much, they get really quiet though.

Thanks. I think they need to be reminded of that more frequently.

The Russians from Russia who afford to travel are also notorious for being annoying and disrespectful tourists throughout Southeast Asia and various other places. Even in online games they stick to each other instead of playing with people from various countries.

Yes. I’m not sure what can be done about this though, except proper education.

I disagree about the Russians in Russia, I think the blame is on Russians, they are the ones who have kept Putin in power for so long.

I could agree but this is different from the imperialism in my book. At least one big reason for that happening is how well constructed the state propaganda was from the very beginning. It’s like most actors are acting out of fear mostly, while not really being obligated to follow the narrative. And the education problem, of course.

I could try to address that disagreement. I’m inclined to assume that you, and citizens of other European countries that had a substantial number of Russians living there, tend to get this impressions exactly from those Russians. Russians who doesn’t live in Russia, and social media related to them. My impression is that they are much more crazy than average Russian living in Russia. The latter are uneducated enough to believe that the west wants to conquer Russia, but the former are idiotic enough to assume they are in some privileged position, and that mist Russians think the same. In reality the rest of Russians don’t have time to indulge in such fantasies and really busy with their lives.

So I’m saying the imperialism exists in a minority of Russians. The irony is that the president is with the minority and that’s why we are in current situation. He got crazy enough with time that he disconnected with majority of the Russians.

I think it’s useless to blame regular Russians in imperialism. But it might be useful to put some pressure on those Russians living outside Russia to make sure they think less about possibility to improve their lives by conquering some country.

Answer: state propaganda. A well crafted one. For every “but this is obviously true” they present you with 5-10 of “but look, there is also this, so we might never really know, therefore it’s most likely not true”. Most people are not well educated and trust this shit.

In a way it does. It would be vastly different if Israel would bomb everything while hamas would care about their fellow citizens.

Let’s just say that this further proves how hamas using civillian infrastructure as a living shield is an intended thing, if not strategy.

Settler colonialism is bad because it is slow ethnic cleansing, and ethnic cleansing is bad.

It is bad but you have to include context. The context may show that it may be not a cleansing at all.

This alone justifies armed resistance, but the settler colonialism is enforced by an apartheid system that treats Palestinians as less than Jewish settlers and restricts their access to their own land with checkpoints, walls, and armed guards. This justifies armed resistance even more.

Sigh. I want to support logic. I want to support countries who define such logic. But sometimes it’s badly defined. When you say “apartheid justifies armed resistance” I want to agree, but why would anyone use it in real life when in real life it can interpreted as “if someone makes you homeless and surrounds you by fire in a 10x10 meters area, it is okay to take a knife and ask them to stop” AND “if someone builds something on an empty land that you thought was yours, it’s okay to take rifles and kill anyone on a land they believe is theirs, to take hostages, break their limbs, spit on their bodies and sing songs about how glorious your god is while you fire missiles at an angle that roughly should land them on their cities”? This is why I asked for details.

That’s bullshit lmao. Israel kills -> people die -> Israel must be stopped. The north during the civil war kills -> people die -> the union must be stopped. Americans kill germans and japanese people in ww2 -> people die -> the US must be stopped. See how I can also massively oversimplify the situation.

I needed to describe what I mean in more detail, sorry. Like I said, this is why I asked for details. My assumption in such logic chains is that the first object has no substance or meaningful reasons. Terrorism rarely has them, and this case is, in my opinion, is not much better. Unless Gaza has been bombed heavily first (unprovoked, which seems was never a case with Israel), it should not have reacted by planning that October 7 attack for months and possibly years.

There is data that show:

• how it was not only military trained people who invaded Israel, it was quite ordinary Palestinians too, in good quantities.
• how they shot anyone indiscriminately, including on a festival event, shooting even in every toilet stand, to not leave anyone alive.
• how they called their parents and said something like “hey dad check WhatsApp, I sent you videos of how I killed jews, I’m calling you from the phone I took from them, I’m a hero” and getting a reply like “Allahu Akbar, kill them more”.
• how they faked a lot of videos with “victims” of Israel attacks.
• etc.

And what do we have on Israel? The long territory dispute is not of my interest. I know it’s very complex, and both parties have enough to support their claims on that land (Gaza refusing to do stuff properly, Israel paying for land etc.).

Apartheid? Gaza is quite tight, yes, but it’s not exactly Kowloon. How exactly could they show the world that they badly need more land? Israel didn’t destroy anything on a land before occupying/populating it, did they? Or do we have records of it doing basically the same terrorist stuff in order to capture a land that was never theirs?

Ethnic cleansing? You go and tell Israeli about that. Israel is populated by arabs who are welcomed to use arabic. At some point there were big populations of jews in arab countries, and now there is no such thing. Isn’t that what would we call cleansing? I’m not seeing any record that would show Jews/Israeli are somehow driven by a desire to destroy a certain nation. There would be at least some emotion to it or something, but instead Israel’s attacks seem instrumental and logical. It’s the opposite with Gaza.

the hate is the horrific conditions they live in. Nothing else can come close to that.

I think I saw a Palestinian with dental crowns. I can imagine one or two countries live in much more horrific conditions.

How so. Shouldn’t an oppresive state actor with backing from the US be held to a higher standard than a resistance movement consisting of a bunch of angry zoomers led by some rich guys in qatar? Yet if you look at the actual actions that they take, Israel tends to be worse in a lot of ways.

Not sure what you’re talking about. Not seeing signs of Israeli army being overall incompetent.

You do however have to show me evidence that every single one of the hospitals and schools that Israel has bombed is a valid military target (spoiler alert: there is none in most cases), and explain why when Russia does it, its bad, but when Israel targets civilians, its fine actually and it isn’t terrorism.

I’m not here to show such evidence, but my understanding and expectation is that Israel will proceed to be transparent about its actions, and will respond to war crime allegations properly, if not now then eventually. Because Israel is quite involved with other countries, is a part of the community that tries to be adequate and show this to everyone. This is where it’s different from Russia. It’s not Israel you should compare Russia to, it’s Hamas. You wouldn’t expect Palestinian terrorists to be judged properly because Gaza has neither institutions nor the will for that, and it’s the same with Russian murderers.

Straight from the wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter#cite_ref-hoffman_18-6

doesn’t mean Israel shouldn’t at least try to negotiate for peace. If hamas keeps attacking, Israel has the military power to make things go right back to the way it was before. The reason Israel doesn’t negotiate is because it isn’t interested in peace, it is interested in cleansing all palestinians from the west bank and gaza and taking their land.

I don’t think it’s okay to put the burden on Israel while it should be Hamas who could show everyone they are not mindless monsters first. And again, I don’t see any evidence that would show Israel has such intentions. If it did, it would be much more effective to spend all those resources on absolute destruction of Gaza years ago, instead of that expensive iron dome stuff. If it did, we’d see many more signs of intolerance. Perhaps most importantly, we’d see some kind of logic behind those intentions. And it doesn’t seem at all that Israel needs that little extra land for any reason.

That doesn’t really help in my experience because this state is not saved. You have to do tricks in order to get it saved like move the window a bit or resize it etc.

a 280 page report / an article with no substance

There is something wrong with the subject if it needs those for anyone to understand the bad nature. You don’t need that with terrorism. Hamas kills -> people die -> hamas must be stopped.

The main radicalizing factor isn’t TV

Then how come it needs to be about how everyone should kill jews?

while Israel propagandizes its civilians and forces most of them into either jail or military service when they reach military age

An army is very different from what terrorists do.

They also put military infrastructure in crowded civilian areas just like Hamas.

Well they also put meaningful effort into protecting all of that. I wouldn’t imagine anyone would do that otherwise.

Ukraine set up bases in civilian areas, including schools. But we still consider Russia the bad guys, for obvious reasons.

Is that sarcasm? Do I need to explain how Russia knowingly bombs non-military targets with no military personnel?

They literally did. How do you think Hamas got elected over Fatah.

It was mentioned (here too I think) that those elections were not exactly what you’d expect from proper elections, and yet you want to use this as an argument…

Straight from the wikipedia page

Well look at how things changed. What was the moment hamas decided to go full terrorist and spend resources on arming up, and how did Palestinians feel about that?

Hamas literally has in its charter that it is willing to accept a 2 state solution on the 1967 lines, so yes it would absolutely be willing to negotiate.

Straight from the wikipedia page:

• Destroying Israel and establishing an Islamic theocracy in Palestine is essential;
• Negotiated resolutions of Jewish and Palestinian claims to the land are unacceptable.

You are ignoring the apartheid and settler colonialism

I’m ignoring it because it bleaks when compared to terrorism. Another reason is like I said, I can’t see how territorial confinement could affect adequate people to the point they would prefer suicide over trying to live further. Either there is some horrible details about the apartheid that I don’t know (and tons of media don’t tell, only mentioning “losing homes” and “unable to use certain roads”) or they are not exactly adequate.

I mean any rocket at tel aviv could be aimed at a military target

These rockets apparently don’t have enough accuracy for anyone to be able to aim them anywhere.

Again, do I need to point you at the people killed by the various other organizations that used terror to fight for freedom? It’s horrible, yes

It’s not as horrible as the way hamas uses its civilians to act as both living shield and terrorist recruits. Children are being told they need to kill jews from the tv, and parents tell them they would be proud of they become “heroes” that way.

I can expect someone to do the right thing, but also recognize that they have no morals and so they won’t do it.

Especially when they have a record, right? Those other conflicts you mentioned were ended when they recognized and supported the oppressed parties, if I get it right. But at the same time they have no morals, sure.

It would be both groups come together and negotiate

I don’t think you understand that odds of that happening. I can imagine Israel saying “sure, you killed quite many our people and we won’t forget that, but we are ready to negotiate if it means end of terrorism”. But can I imagine hamas saying anything like “sure, we vowed to destroy Israel and trained terrorists just for that for generations, but if it means we won’t need to do it anymore, and if we get some land we always asked for, we are ready to negotiate”? No. Because these people never showed that they even cared for their own population, and negotiations would mean they would need to actually work towards establishing a proper state and take care of themselves. If they couldn’t do the same before that, they will never do it properly. Not hamas.

So it really has just been 1 people genetically and the differences are mostly just made up.

As with the whole Earth population. I couldn’t find proofs that Palestinians have deeper or bigger presence over time there than Israeli.

But either way, this is something I refuse to accept as an argument. Nations move. Some not but it doesn’t mean they are unable to. I’d check out specific reasons like natural disasters, resources etc. But I see no such arguments - everyone just scream “this is our land and we must take it back”. Humans don’t work like that and there is no need to spend tons of resources to fight for it. Adaptation is how everyone lives. Sure, spend some resources on figuring out diplomacy, but terrorism is beyond the adequate line.

I’ll point you to human rights organizations describing the current conditions as Apartheid

And I thought the current condition is war.

They see violence as the only option, since when they peacefully protest (eg. great march of return), they get shot. And no, throwing stones does not justify that. Israeli soldiers got at most a few bruises.

If there was anything like throwing stones with slongshots then it wasn’t a peaceful protest. We know palestinians are raised with “gotta kill a jew to become a hero and make my parents proud” thought, and it’s easy to realize those were aggression actions masked as “protests”. Before you judge an army for shooting them, you have to consider palestinian “protesters” would not be judged if they manage to kill anyone with a stone, they would be praised instead.

Israel regularly overreacts to violence from Gaza

“Chill up Israel, it’s just a child’s play”?

by leveling civilian infrastructure without providing proof that it’s being used by Hamas

Maybe we should ask hamas to provide proofs that they fire missiles at military objects in Israel?

Over 1000 palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons without any charges against them. Some children in prisons are held in solitary confinement (torture)

You really can compare that to (and justify) what happend at October 7? At this point I’ll kindly ask you to agree that you are applying different judgement systems for 2 nations. You allow palestinians be bloody monsters but you require that israeli would not touch them no matter what happens.

A while ago it came out that Israel used to harvest organs from dead Palestinians, and currently they haven’t given back a few hundred bodies iirc.

Spooky. Any investigations of that at all?

And human rights organizations have describes Gaza as an open air prison.

It’s just a nice word. If you can build rockets surely you can build something more useful, and it can’t happen in a prison.

considering how much money the defense industry makes from them

There is a contradiction when people first expect the western world to take the side of Gaza in order to save lifes, and then say that the same western world really sell defense equipment for profit only and not to save lifes.

This is just speculation, we don’t know what it would look like if the Palestinians won.

Basically, it would look like there is no more Israel, and a lot more of “Allahu Akbar” screams everyday all over the world, probably.

Worth it in my opinion, if it means that there is relative peace.

Worth it to get rid of Israel? Or worth it to leave a terrorist organization in power of 2 million people alone?

if it means that there is relative peace

And I thought people learned a lesson from the WW2, from the Ukraine war. Once you appease the aggressor there is no way back. And certainly no way for a peace.

Yes, the ANC used to put suspected collaborators in tires and burn them alive. They also took civilian hostages and killed civilians in bombings. The Viet Cong killed about 150k civilians. The algerians killed French people regardless of their combatant status.

Why do I have a feeling all these parties still have much less in common with hamas?

If we go back in history

If we do we’ll surely find that many other people lived there, not just these 2. But some people still want to judge a land by it’s past when it benefits them.

Again you didn’t explain how exactly this affects their lives to an extent that they see violence as the only option.

This justifies armed resistance.

I would even agree with that. If only it would look even remotely as a resistance. As something that would eventually give a chance to anyone to get whatever they call “freedom”. But it’s just not that. It’s a suicide. Hamas can’t defeat Israel with terrorism, and even in a strange course of events it would, I can’t see how it can become a proper country anyway. They would lose all support and wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves.