You think it's an execuse that some genocides are not acceptable because the people who denounce them have super brains, but Israeli's genocide is acceptable because Israelis cannot denounce aparthied and genocide because their brains cannot accept the truth, and so we should let them keep at it? ?!?!

Why is it that 99.9% of Israeli scholars and proffessors are anti Zionism? All their educated are anti Zionist despite how many rockets their country regualrly intercepts from Hamas.

Israelis are indoctrinated with Zionism and Jewish superamcy literally seeing Palestinians as non-humans. They refuse to open their eyes to the truth because they're too happy dancing next to besieged open-air prison, and enjoy previliges no one on this earth does.

You don't think unchecked power corrupts?? Well, literally a settler can come up to you, shoot you dead and nothing will happen to him. The court will grant him your mom's house which your family lived in before their country was even created, then come the next day protected by soliders to kick your family out. This is not an exaggeration, this happens in 2025 in the West Bank where there is no Hamas and the PO work under the IOF to oppress you.

Peacful marchings and Palestinain Ghandis were met with death for decades. South Africa's aparthied only ended AFTER the world sanctioned them to nonexistance while in Israel's case, not only there has never been a boycott, the world strongest economies enable them with $billions year after year and the Palestinain cause was dead.

On October-8-2023, the Western democracies of the world including France, Italy, UK, Spain and even the Arab dictatorships were siding with the occupying genocidal aparthied sucking Netynyahu's dick and it's on Youtube until this day.

And before Oct-7 2023, it was dead and the Arab dictatorships were normalizing relationships with a genocidal ethnostate under the US approval left and right. You cannot ask people to accept living as slaves when you only have one earthly existance. You either die slowly on your knees in silent, or die on your feet resisting, and they chose the harder bloodier latter because the first has not worked.

Normal israelis used to be more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

For all the good that did Palestinians. The fact of the matter is that no serious attempt at a two state solution (if we even consider Oslo that) has come from Israel since Rabin, and we all know how that ended. Israeli "support" for Palestinian liberation is too fickle and too noncommittal to be counted on as a basis for anything, and peace talks between the PA and Israel would remain as farcical as ever even as support for a two-state solution hit its peak (about 70%). As MLK describes in A Letter from a Birmingham Jail, "later" and "if you behave" have always been synonyms for "never" in liberation politics.

But regular missile attacks and air raid sirens desensitised them in recent times.

Israeli support for a two-state solution peaked after the notoriously violent Second Intifada, so I'm not convinced the amount of violence exercised by Palestinians is playing a significant role here. What's more likely is that the late 90s and early 2000s were an anomaly and now Israel is experiencing a pendulum swing in the opposite direction, helped along by the rise of fascism in Western-aligned democracies.

Israelis nearly got rid of Netanyahu, but attacks like Oct 7 galvanised the public behind him.

They were going to get rid of him because he's corrupt, not because support for his agenda had soured. Case in point: They refuse to get rid of him, even though an overwhelming majority wants him to resign, because they're prioritizing the genocide.

I lived the resistance of the ANC in the late 80s. Umkhonto weSiswe was a lot less prominent by then since the change in strategy.

The late 80s was after most prerequisite progress had already happened and reform was a serious prospect; this is like saying "see? The Good Friday Agreement proves violence was unnecessary in North Irish liberation!" Like, of course violence will be less necessary with serious talks underway; the problem is forcing those talks to happen in the first place.

What I am advocating for is that in all similar situations around the world, armed attacks on the civilians of the other side have NEVER resulted in success.

I'm not advocating attacking civilians specifically, but... North Ireland? What do you think the IRA was doing?