▲ 100 ▼ Israel advances plan for 627 settler units in occupied West Bank (www.aljazeera.com) submitted 3 weeks ago by supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz to c/world@quokk.au 12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] PancakesCantKillMe@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Even that seems too sanitized. They are invaders. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mrdown@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) An invasion is often a temporary military takeover to defeat an enemy or seize resources. Colonization is a permanent project of settlement, displacement, and control that aims to replace local societies with a new permanent order. Settler colonialism is genocidal by nature, invasion can even be legal .Colonizer is the stronger and more accurate term permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flandish@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) colonization happens through the action of invasion. they are currently actively invading and “invader” has more “social understanding” than “colonizer” does. imho, “invader” fits better because they are a fascist force of pieces of zionist inhuman trash doing an invading. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mrdown@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) The allies for example invaded Germany it was a temporary invasion. Colonization like I said is permanent and the goal is to replace the local people with other group of people from foreigner land which is always genocidal, invasion is not aleays genocidal . I don't think the idea that people has more social understanding of what invader mean then colonizer is true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flandish@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) i mean fair but you have to admit that the transition to “raze houses and put up new ones in the west bank that we already sold on markets in nyc” is a meatspace invasion. you can’t have colonization without invasion and i think from an “agitprop” pov the term invasion upsets more audiences than what you and i, nerds for this stuff, would say.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mrdown@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago I think you are proving my point since colonization include invasion it is better to use the term colonization because it show that the intent is genocide while invasion could include legal invasion or illegal invasion without the goal of genocide permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) An invasion is often a temporary military takeover to defeat an enemy or seize resources. Colonization is a permanent project of settlement, displacement, and control that aims to replace local societies with a new permanent order. Settler colonialism is genocidal by nature, invasion can even be legal .Colonizer is the stronger and more accurate term permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flandish@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) colonization happens through the action of invasion. they are currently actively invading and “invader” has more “social understanding” than “colonizer” does. imho, “invader” fits better because they are a fascist force of pieces of zionist inhuman trash doing an invading. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mrdown@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) The allies for example invaded Germany it was a temporary invasion. Colonization like I said is permanent and the goal is to replace the local people with other group of people from foreigner land which is always genocidal, invasion is not aleays genocidal . I don't think the idea that people has more social understanding of what invader mean then colonizer is true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flandish@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) i mean fair but you have to admit that the transition to “raze houses and put up new ones in the west bank that we already sold on markets in nyc” is a meatspace invasion. you can’t have colonization without invasion and i think from an “agitprop” pov the term invasion upsets more audiences than what you and i, nerds for this stuff, would say.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mrdown@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago I think you are proving my point since colonization include invasion it is better to use the term colonization because it show that the intent is genocide while invasion could include legal invasion or illegal invasion without the goal of genocide permalink fedilink source parent
[–] flandish@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) colonization happens through the action of invasion. they are currently actively invading and “invader” has more “social understanding” than “colonizer” does. imho, “invader” fits better because they are a fascist force of pieces of zionist inhuman trash doing an invading. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mrdown@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) The allies for example invaded Germany it was a temporary invasion. Colonization like I said is permanent and the goal is to replace the local people with other group of people from foreigner land which is always genocidal, invasion is not aleays genocidal . I don't think the idea that people has more social understanding of what invader mean then colonizer is true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flandish@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) i mean fair but you have to admit that the transition to “raze houses and put up new ones in the west bank that we already sold on markets in nyc” is a meatspace invasion. you can’t have colonization without invasion and i think from an “agitprop” pov the term invasion upsets more audiences than what you and i, nerds for this stuff, would say.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mrdown@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago I think you are proving my point since colonization include invasion it is better to use the term colonization because it show that the intent is genocide while invasion could include legal invasion or illegal invasion without the goal of genocide permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) The allies for example invaded Germany it was a temporary invasion. Colonization like I said is permanent and the goal is to replace the local people with other group of people from foreigner land which is always genocidal, invasion is not aleays genocidal . I don't think the idea that people has more social understanding of what invader mean then colonizer is true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flandish@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) i mean fair but you have to admit that the transition to “raze houses and put up new ones in the west bank that we already sold on markets in nyc” is a meatspace invasion. you can’t have colonization without invasion and i think from an “agitprop” pov the term invasion upsets more audiences than what you and i, nerds for this stuff, would say.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mrdown@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago I think you are proving my point since colonization include invasion it is better to use the term colonization because it show that the intent is genocide while invasion could include legal invasion or illegal invasion without the goal of genocide permalink fedilink source parent
[–] flandish@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) i mean fair but you have to admit that the transition to “raze houses and put up new ones in the west bank that we already sold on markets in nyc” is a meatspace invasion. you can’t have colonization without invasion and i think from an “agitprop” pov the term invasion upsets more audiences than what you and i, nerds for this stuff, would say.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mrdown@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago I think you are proving my point since colonization include invasion it is better to use the term colonization because it show that the intent is genocide while invasion could include legal invasion or illegal invasion without the goal of genocide permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago I think you are proving my point since colonization include invasion it is better to use the term colonization because it show that the intent is genocide while invasion could include legal invasion or illegal invasion without the goal of genocide permalink fedilink source parent