Please explain to me how defining the murder of civilians as a legitimate and legal attack for the crime of existing in a country while a particular ethnicity is anything but a call for ethnic cleansing.
Characterising fighting against an occupying force as “calling for the genocide of the working class for being the wrong ethnicity” is deliberately misinterpreting the post that (I presume you) were responding to.
“[attack targeting civilians] was a legitimate attack against an occupying force.”
“Innocent civilians are not an occupying force”
“When they’re the people who’ve stolen your homes and land, they are”
Please, explain this to me. Explain to me how “Israeli civilians are legitimate targets because they’re the ethnicity who’ve stolen your homes and land” isn’t a call for genocide.
This discounts action, as ‘innocent’, ‘civilian’ and ‘not an occupying force’ are all specified.
“When they’re the people who’ve stolen your homes and land, they are”
… so what the fuck other use of “the people” here is there? It can’t be referring to a group of people who are performing an action, that was explicitly discounted by the prior comment. “who’ve stolen your homes and land”, especially in the context of civilians attacked who were nowhere near illegal settlements, is referring to - and this may be shocking - Israelis.
As for working class, who the ever-loving fuck do you think makes up the majority of most civilian populations
Holy strawman, Batman!
Please explain to me how defining the murder of civilians as a legitimate and legal attack for the crime of existing in a country while a particular ethnicity is anything but a call for ethnic cleansing.
Characterising fighting against an occupying force as “calling for the genocide of the working class for being the wrong ethnicity” is deliberately misinterpreting the post that (I presume you) were responding to.
That is a strawman.
“[attack targeting civilians] was a legitimate attack against an occupying force.”
“Innocent civilians are not an occupying force”
“When they’re the people who’ve stolen your homes and land, they are”
Please, explain this to me. Explain to me how “Israeli civilians are legitimate targets because they’re the ethnicity who’ve stolen your homes and land” isn’t a call for genocide.
None of the sentences you’ve quoted mention either working class or ethnicity.
“Innocent civilians are not an occupying force”
This discounts action, as ‘innocent’, ‘civilian’ and ‘not an occupying force’ are all specified.
“When they’re the people who’ve stolen your homes and land, they are”
… so what the fuck other use of “the people” here is there? It can’t be referring to a group of people who are performing an action, that was explicitly discounted by the prior comment. “who’ve stolen your homes and land”, especially in the context of civilians attacked who were nowhere near illegal settlements, is referring to - and this may be shocking - Israelis.
As for working class, who the ever-loving fuck do you think makes up the majority of most civilian populations
You can lead a man to logic but you can’t make him think.