intp-t-bestanalyst

Female Intp-t

I like blue lock, haikyuu and Tokyo revengers and I am now officially making this a rant page because I've got theories.

65 posts

GOJO WON GOJO WON GOJO WON GOJO WON GOJO WON GOJO

GOJO WON GOJO WON GOJO WON GOJO WON GOJO WON GOJO—

More Posts from Intp-t-bestanalyst

intp-t-bestanalyst

1 year ago

The truth will always be clear for those who are willing to find it.

36 notes View Post

intp-t-bestanalyst

1 year ago

In 23 days.

It is day 25 now btw. There is a massacre happening right now in Gabaliya (populated area in the north) and in Al Nonsayat (in the south filled with refugees from the north).

They are now bombing the north and the south heavily. And officially the amount of explosives dropped on Gaza (18,000 tons) has surpassed the nuclear on Hiroshima in 1945 (12,000 tons).

All that plus the ground invasion.

Keep talking. Keep sharing. Keep posting.

8K notes View Post

intp-t-bestanalyst

1 year ago

Lets Talk
The Biggest Myth: The "Isaeli-Palestinian conflict". How the conflict framework enables oppression and stops you from understanding the solution.

1) The reason we shouldn't describe what's happening in Palestine as a "conflict" isn't about semantics. "Conflict" and "Colonialism" (and forms of oppression in general) are two different analytical frameworks that identify different problems and thus different solutions. Western insistence on approaching Palestine using the conflict framework is partly why it fails to do anything other than enable the oppression of Palestinians. Let's explain, once and for all, why this isn't a "conflict". This time, by analyzing the real political consequences of misapplying the "conflict" framework to history's most well-documented case of settler colonialism.

2) The "Conflict" Framework.
Our understanding of the problem dictates our understanding of the solution. The conflict framework relies on certain premises and resolution paradigms. Just by describing something as a "conflict" you are communicating three things:
1. There are two mostly equal sides.
2. The problem is that the two sides are fighting or disagreeing.
3. The solution is to get them to stop fighting and to mutually agree.

So just by describing it as an "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" you are inducing people to think: "It's a shame they disagree and fight. How can we get the Israelis to agree, and how can we get the Palestinians to agree?" This treats "both sides' as having equally legitimate demands that can and must be compromised on.

3) The Colonialism Framework.
But if you tell someone that there's a case of
colonization, you are immediately communicating that:
1.One group is dominating another in an
unequal relationship
2. The problem is that there is colonization
3. The solution is to end colonization and decolonize.

Your approach to the solution wouldn't be "How do we get the colonizer and the colonized people to mutually agree and compromise on their equally valid demands?" Palestine is a case of settler colonialism, similar to South Africa, Australia, and Canada. Settler colonialism* is when invading settlers establish an exclusive nation by eliminating and replacing the indigenous population, which is what the Zionist movement has been doing by establishing settlements from 1882 until today, ethnically cleansing Palestinians in the process. *For more info, check out our "Why Does Israel Colonize Palestine?" post.

4) How This Impacts Policy
If it was a conflict over land and power, then ending it, and everything it entails (the blockade on Gaza, the occupation, apartheid, settlements, human rights abuses) would be conditional on getting both Israelis and Palestinians to agree. But these things are not and should never be conditional on the comfortable agreement of the oppressor. Apartheid and occupation need to end immediately and unconditionally, not only when it suits Israel's interests and not only through "peaceful negotiations" but by any means necessary, including military resistance. Imagine calling to end South African apartheid only as long as it suits the apartheid regime, or to stop the Rwandan Genocide only as long as it suits those carrying out the genocide.

5) Calling it a "conflict" is also
misleading and dishonest.
Imagine saying the:
"South African conflict"
"European-Native American conflict"
"German-Jewish conflict"
"French-Algerian conflict'

These were all "conflicts" in the sense that they technically involved disagreeing parties. But calling them that would deceive people as to the true nature of what was happening. It's dishonest and distortive. That's the case with Palestine. Describing it as a "conflict" completely obscures the nature of the Zionist colonization of Palestine and severe oppression, and instead falsely says the fighting is the problem, rather than the oppression of which violence is only a symptom.

6)"Conflict" is an Israeli Narrative

Some people think "conflict" is a 'neutral term, and use it to avoid adopting either the Zionist or the Palestinian narrative. But they are actually adopting a very politically charged Israeli narrative. Israel and its supporters falsely frame what's happening as a conflict?or 'dispute'. E.g. Israel refers to the West Bank as a "disputed territory", instead of occupied, as it is officially recognized by the rest of the world. They do this because it legitimizes their demands as equally valid to Palestinians'. So when you say 'conflict?, you are actually pushing a political, pro-lsraeli narrative.

7) The Problem with "Calling for "Peace"

Terms associated with the conflict framework like "peace" are also problematic. Peace is great, but when you call for peace in any situation of oppression, especially colonization, you reinforce the misleading view that the problem is that two sides are fighting. But the problem isn't that they're fighting - one of them has a legitimate reason to fight, and should not stop fighting until they are free. Of course, many scholars correctly argue that true peace requires freedom, justice and equality. But this nuance is lost in mainstream discourse, and calling for "peace" now can only reinforce the toxic "conflict" framework among people.
Call for freedom.
Call for justice.
Call for decolonizing Palestine.
from the river to the sea.

8) Correct Terms
The term "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" has
unfortunately infected our discourse so much that many people might struggle to use an alternative. Here are some;

• The Palestinian struggle
• The Palestinian cause (this is a term used by palestinians in arabic)
• The Israeli colonization of Palestine
• The lsraeli occupation of Palestine
• The Israeli oppression of Palestinians

This isn't a conflict between two sides. This is a cause for ending colonization. An unrelenting struggle for freedom, belonging, and life.

Honestly I was just thinking the other day about how annoying it is when people, mostly Israelis, call this a conflict. Then I found this post and it explained everything perfectly. So here you go, this is also for the people who at times maybe cant find the right words to explain why "conflict", is the wrong term to describe whats happening in Palestine.

@ letstalkpalestine posted this on Instagram

here is the source for the Information they use

168 notes View Post

intp-t-bestanalyst

1 year ago

Thread

1K notes View Post

intp-t-bestanalyst

1 year ago

How come Shinzo is getting married like you’re telling me that anxious child of a man is capable of getting bitches? Be fr w me rn

Tags :

this is my way of coping With the fact That my favourite character is getting married becausr it's just so!!!! no its wrong intp rants mission: yozakura family shinzo yozakura

6 notes View Post