@afellowkid
@lemmygrad.mlI imagine it's because of this: Nuclear-capable US B-52 strategic bomber touches down in S. Korea for first time
The article I linked above is from south Korea's main center-left liberal paper. It comments this:
An American B-52 strategic bomber capable of carrying nuclear weapons was scheduled to land at a South Korean air base on Tuesday. This marks the first time a B-52 has ever landed at a South Korean air base, and is seen as a warning directed at North Korea in response to its growing nuclear and missile capabilities.
Considering that the B-52 is capable of dropping nuclear bombs while in flight, there’s little military utility in landing at an air base in South Korea. However, the strategic bomber does have considerable significance on a symbolic level, underlining the US’ commitment to extended deterrence against North Korea’s nuclear threat.
Considering that North Korea has warned about the potential outbreak of nuclear war each time US nuclear-powered aircraft carriers or strategic bombers are dispatched to the Korean Peninsula, it is likely to have an even more dramatic reaction to a US strategic bomber landing in South Korea for the first time.
Notable also is that under south Korea's current conservative Yoon administration, the new appointee (since June) to Minister of Unification is a north Korea hawk who wants nukes for south Korea:
Notably, as Kim Young-ho is a hard-liner on North Korea who has argued for the overthrow of the Kim Jong-un regime and has stressed that South Korea should arm itself with its own nuclear weapons time and time again, critics point out that his appointment dulls the value and meaning of the unification ministry, which should carry out unification policies aimed at North Korea.
Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korea Studies, commented that Thursday’s personnel appointments “signal the launch of a ‘ministry of confrontation’ or a ‘ministry of North Korean absorption’ that aims to unify [Korea] through absorption via antagonism and confrontation rather than a unification ministry seeking peaceful unification through dialogue and cooperation.”
The atmosphere within the ministry as it welcomes outside figures for its two chief positions is uneasy. One official told Yonhap News that “it seems like the unification ministry is being demanded to completely change its organizational identity, such as what it does, its approach, and the mindset of its members.”
As things fell through under the previous president, Moon, who was a liberal but who made some peaceful cooperation efforts with DPRK, and Trump, who made talks with DPRK but then threatened them, and piled on sanctions without lifting them when DPRK made efforts toward appeasement, and now Yoon came in who is a conservative and USA stan and major anti-communist who is promoting a NATO-like alliance in Asia and having war exercises and military parades etc., DPRK basically has stepped back from appeasement efforts at this time, strengthening ties with its other neighbors, and instead not shying away from making criticism when threatened with "decapitation drills" from the US and conservative Yoon regime (whom large numbers of south Koreans have been protesting and calling to resign due to his warmongering, among other things).
I am also learning details about this so I will just share what I've been looking at. Some of these I haven't fully read yet, so keep in mind I am just showing you the same things I am learning from in the moment.
How Palestine Became Colonized - Video/documentary overview by Empire Files
Palestine, Israel, and the U.S. Empire - Audiobook released by Liberation School, looks like episodes 3-9 probably deal with what you're asking; I haven't listened to it yet
Palestine 101 - Series of history articles by Decolonize Palestine
::: spoiler Historical details/quotes from "Palestine 101"
The [Ottoman] empire would eventually collapse after its defeat in the first World War [...] It was during the final few decades of this dramatic collapse that a certain Austro-Hungarian thinker, Theodor Herzl, was planting the seeds of a new political movement that would change Palestinian history forever.
Convened in the Swiss city of Basel in 1897, the first Zionist congress included over 200 delegates from all over Europe. [...] While there were other Zionist and proto-Zionist movements preceding this which had settled in Palestine, such as Hibbat Zion, the Zionist congress was the first to organize and marshal the colonization efforts in a centralized and effective way.
In the wake of its defeat in WW1, the Ottoman empire was dissolved and its regions carved up and divided among various European colonial powers. In the Levant, Palestine and Jordan fell under the mandate of the British, while Syria and Lebanon to that of the French. The British entered Jerusalem in 1917, and Palestine officially became a mandate in 1922.
The mandate of Palestine provided a golden opportunity for the Zionist movement to achieve its aims. The British were far more responsive to Zionist goals than the Ottomans were, and had earlier produced the Balfour Declaration promising the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine [...] The British had no genuine sympathy for the plight of the historically oppressed Jewish people; Rather, they saw in the Zionist movement a mechanism through which British interests in the Levant and Suez could be realized.
Emboldened by the Balfour Declaration and supportive British governors, the Zionist movement ramped up its colonization efforts and established a provisional proto-state within a state in Palestine, called the Yishuv. While the Yishuv’s relationship with the British had its ups and downs, the British provided the Zionists with explicit as well as tacit sponsorship which would allow them to thrive. Meanwhile, they would harshly repress any Palestinian movement or organization while turning a blind eye to Zionist expansion, which by the end of the mandate enabled the conquest and mass destruction of hundreds of Palestinian villages and neighborhoods.
:::
Deconstructing and debunking Zionism - Another article; I haven't read it all yet, I just skipped to the section "What are the origins of Zionism?"
::: spoiler Historical details/quotes from "Deconstructing and debunking Zionism"
Herzl’s WZO was created in 1897, and identified Palestine as the site of the future Jewish state. With its support, Zionist settlers began to migrate to Palestine. The WZO attempted to gain support for their project from the Ottoman Empire, but their efforts were in vain [...] With the outbreak of WWI, [...] Zionists found official support for their project from the British Empire. The British, then fighting the Ottomans, sought to colonize whatever territories they could seize from the evidently decaying empire.
In 1917, near the close of the war, the British issued the Balfour Declaration. Supporting the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was clearly a component of the aim of claiming the formerly Ottoman-held territories, and would have world-historic consequences. Much of the supplementary support behind the Declaration from British gentiles was motivated by Evangelical Protestantism, which viewed it as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, and, significantly, an antisemitic desire to solve the so-called “Jewish Question” by encouraging Jewish people to leave Europe. Settler migration into Palestine grew significantly following WWI, and Israel as a settler-colonial nation began to emerge.
Under British rule in Mandatory Palestine, native Palestinians began to be displaced by the settlers, being excluded from the labor force and the purchase of land and property, which Zionist settlers confined to other settlers [...] From 1936 to 1939, Arabs revolted against British rule and Zionist settler-colonialism.
The British then issued the 1939 White Paper, restricting further Jewish immigration into Palestine. After WWII and the devastation of the Holocaust, Europe was convinced that their “Jewish Question” could only be answered by pushing Jewish people out of Europe and into a colonial outpost. And significant sections of the Jewish population were convinced the same
Zionists began to migrate into the settlements in even higher numbers, in defiance of the White Paper. Zionists even began to revolt against British rule, seeking to establish Israel as a state. By 1947, the UN created a plan to partition Palestine into two independent states and a neutral Jerusalem, though it failed to implement it. In response to the passage of the plan, the 1947–1948 civil war broke out between Zionists and Palestinians. By 1948, the state of Israel was established.
:::
Gaza Fights for Freedom (2019) - Documentary
How Palestine Became Colonized (2016) - Documentary
Massacres were indispensable to creation of the Israeli state - Article
Letter from Gaza: ‘We prefer to die standing than to give up’ - Article
Electronic Intifada - Journalism outlet
Palestinians get killed when they do nothing, they get killed when they protest peacefully. Western libs continue to fund and ignore the deaths of Palestinians regardless. Palestinians are being murdered en masse now for those who have taken up arms, but their reality has been that they are murdered en masse regardless anyway, because the plan is to remove them (edit: that is to say, "responding" to their resistance is just a pretext, an excuse to kill/remove Palestinians will always be found, no matter what the narrative around it is). Some random liberal who openly admits not knowing much about the situation and refusing to support Palestinian liberation because an organized resistance is too scary for liberal bystanders to think about really means nothing to Palestinians. Westerners, settlers, liberals can debate all they want about it and be sad that Palestinians aren't dying more quietly and politely, but it's a basic reality that people who are being oppressed are going to resist. And when your plan is to remove a people and you silence and kill off and ignore all of their peaceful resistance efforts (of which there always have been and are many, but it's ignored), all that remains is organized militant resistance. If you remain ignorant of it now or only care to genuinely listen to one side then you truly do not give a fuck about stopping violence, you just want to keep having dance parties next to concentration camps.
I'm not going to respond further but good luck in learning, I hope you mean it.
Similarly, the SS man Josef Blösche rode through the Warsaw ghetto at times on a rickshaw powered by a Jewish prisoner, on which occasions he would use the vehicle as a platform to test his marksmanship and shoot Jews either on the street or those standing at their windows.
What the goddamn fuck
I'm taking a look through the link that @GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml stickied on c/GenZhou. I'm also trying to learn more about the early history of the region, as I also mostly only know about the more recent history. So, take my post as someone else also learning about this too and sharing my notes, not as someone well-versed on the topic.
Here's a page from there: Myth: My people were here before your people.
Key points from the page:
The ethnic cleansing, massacres and colonialism needed to establish Israel can never be justified, regardless of who was there first. It’s a moot point. Even if we follow the argument that Palestinians have only been there for 1300 years, does this suddenly legitimize the expulsion of hundreds of thousands? Of course not. There is no possible scenario where it is excusable to ethnically cleanse a people and colonize their lands. Human rights apply to people universally, regardless of whether they have lived in an area for a year or ten thousand years.
A point regarding the historical issue of the population (read the whole page for more info about that):
[T]he Palestinian Arabs of today did not suddenly appear from the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century to settle in Palestine, but are the same indigenous peoples living there who changed how they identified over time. This includes the descendants of every group that has ever called Palestine their home. When regions change rulers, they don’t normally change populations. Throughout history, peoples have often changed how they identified politically. The Sardinians eventually became Italians, Prussians became Germans. It would be laughable to suggest that the Sardinians were kicked out and replaced by a distinct foreign Italian people. We must separate the political nationalist identity of people from their personhood as human beings, as nationalism is a relatively modern concept, especially in the Middle East.
"Jewish history ... forms a part of the Palestinian past and heritage, just like every other group, kingdom or empire that settled there does ... These positions can be maintained while simultaneously rejecting Zionism and its colonialism"
If we reject the “we were there first” argument, and not treat it as a legitimizing factor for Israel’s creation, then we can focus on the real history, without any ideological agendas. We could trace how our pasts intersected throughout the centuries. After all, there is indeed Jewish history in Palestine. This history forms a part of the Palestinian past and heritage, just like every other group, kingdom or empire that settled there does. We must stop viewing Palestinian and Jewish histories as competing, mutually exclusive entities, because for most of history they have not been. These positions can be maintained while simultaneously rejecting Zionism and its colonialism. After all, this ideologically driven impulse to imagine our ancestors as some closed, well defined, unchanging homogenous group having exclusive ownership over lands corresponding to modern day borders has nothing to do with the actual history of the area, and everything to do with modern notions of ethnic nationalism and colonialism.
Another page: Myth: The "conflict" is ancient
This shallow analysis of the question of Palestine serves multiple functions; First, it is an attractive and easy way to comment on the situation without actually saying anything or taking a side. It is convenient because it spares you the need to do any research or take a stance while simultaneously morally elevating yourself over the “backwards” people in the region. This is done in an attempt to project a false image of understanding or nuance.
[T]he question of Palestine is not some ancient blood feud between eternally warring peoples, it is a recent struggle resulting from settler colonialism infused with reactionary ethnonationalism, both relatively new concepts originating in the last couple of centuries. The analysis of the question of Palestine through any other lens will produce a flawed and misleading understanding of the facts on the ground and will result in shallow and ahistorical interpretations of the region as the one discussed above.
Since iirc the video you linked mentioned this: Myth: The name "Palestine" was a Roman invention
As I said, I am also learning more about the more distant past history of this region, and at the moment I am in the phase of just gathering information and reading up, not yet at a phase of fact-checking certain details (though, as the pages above importantly point out, certain facts are moot points in regard to justifying settler colonization--nonetheless it's good to be aware of factual historical information).
I'm going to be taking the information on the above pages as a jumping off point as I learn more about it. I noticed that each page in their myths section contains a list of sources, so maybe you (and I) could start looking into those. I know you said you know about the more recent history but I thought this Empire Files video was informative due to containing several quotations from Zionists before and throughout the history of their colonization of Palestine and context about European colonial projects: How Palestine Became Colonized.
Again, this video, like the above website, and also like the video you linked, are all media intended to quickly introduce information to a mass audience, so we should always be taking them as a starting point for more detailed research. As someone else in this thread mentioned, keep learning about the history, keep expanding your knowledge of the context. Read widely with a critical mind and with a materialist analysis and keep wary of the imperialist point of view being the default in many sources. Explicitly Marxist histories of events can help very much in orienting your research but you can also do your best to make that kind of analysis yourself as you become more informed using sources of all kinds as long as you remain critical.
I happened to come across these articles today, linking in case you still wanted info on this topic
AP corrects story falsely claiming homosexuality is illegal for Palestinians
Why I painted a rainbow flag on Israel’s apartheid wall
The Real Oppressors of Gaza's Gay Community: Hamas or Israel?
Transcript contains some errors, typos, and spots where I was unsure of what exactly was said, which I marked by a question mark, but should be mostly readable. Feel free to correct any problems you see.
Edit: I'm mostly through transcribing the video, mostly just cleaning it up now. Edited since rn I don't need what I was asking about earlier.
I suggest studying some Korean history and reading the works of DPRK's leaders and other DPRK authors directly and over time you can form your own evaluation of what they believe and why they have implemented particular policies at various times. I don't have time to write more on it at the moment but you can find some of Kim Jong Il's views on Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, socialist construction, and Juche here.