The opposite would also track with the long history of Palestinian terror attacks (not resistance, which is obviously valid and just, but specifically the terror attacks, which BTW aren't restricted to Hamas)

Tell me more about those Palestinian terror attacks that are not resistance. When did they happen? And what makes you think some fighting is resistance, and some isn't? Are you a specialist in resistance?

Oh my, sorry I missed this earlier. Yes, this is distortively oversimplified.

So, no, a complex system of colonialism, racialization, tools of genocide dependent on globalized economics and supply chains, and institutions of knowledge production are not part of our, "lizard brains." But to suggest that the underlying imperialism and genocide somehow is is a very popular, ahistorical narrative deployed by fascists, like Zionists, to naturalize their actions. If it is "natural" for humans to be "tribalistic," and tribalism inevitably results in genocide and imperialism, then there is no way to stop what they're doing and most importantly, no point in trying. This is, of course, a lie.

We have many examples of cultural or ethnic groups cooperating over territory well before and after this modern period. For example, the Dish Wirh One Spoon Wampum between the Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee in the Great Lakes Region of North America coexisted with British racialization and colonization of Gaelic peoples in Ireland. In fact, we know that the concept of territory as you naturalized here doesn't even apply to this agreement, as it presumes territory and land are equivalent, and both are commodified. Conversely, their agreement ensured a shared, "international" access to the land's resources on its terms as well as the nations who were a part of it.

This is all of course besides the egregious assertion that there is somehow an equivalence between the violence of the colonizer and colonized. No, self-defense is not the same as murder, and a victim is not irrational for refusing to stop so long as the murderer will not. Israel is a settler-colonial state, and as all of its kind it not only employs, but requires genocide to exist. It is founded on the notion that territory, which is the same as land in this understanding, ought to belong to a privileged, idealized group of people. There is no world where these systems exist and do not seek to continue their genocide of any and all indigenous peoples. This system exists not because it is inevitable, but because there is a vested interest of the EU, UK, Canada, US, Australia, every settler-colonial state in the world to safeguard Israel's power to commit that genocide as they all must and do. Ireland is actually a great example of how this functions since, as a colonized land and people, there is certainly more empathy and sympathy for Palestinians than many other global north cultures. However, that doesn't mean the Republic of Ireland will leave the EU so long as it is complacent in the genocide of Palestinians. It is for the same reason that Israel is very much a EuroAmerican project.

That is why it is such a strawman to behave as though decolonization amounts to, "kicking the white people out," even if that wouldn't be necessarily unjust to demand. Settler-colonialism is a system, a set of socially constructed relations, and decolonialism is the movement to deconstruct that system. A two-state solution is not that, and its use in Ireland has tellingly not resolved the centuries of continued harm to Irish Gaelic peoples. When you say violence only stops when "both sides," agree to stop, you have discounted the reality that this system can afford to postpone genocide. Canada and the US have legal guarantees for indigenous nations within their occupied territory that often function comparably to two-state solutions in their focus on autonomy and sovereignty, it would be laughable to say that this means neither the US or Canada have genocidal intentions toward those nations. There is little immediate or mass violence related to colonization projects in North America at this point not because both sides have agreed to peace, but because the colonizers have adopted more abstract, occluding mechanisms of genocide that can act slowly over generations. You are always wrong to say people should not fight that. Nobody is telling settlers to 'go home,' but that doesn't mean you can just expect them to lay down and die for the convenience of momentary peace.

Also, indigenous peoples do not live on "rock," they live in relationship to an ecosystem and all living things in it as well as the generations of memory and culture that they embody in relation to those living things. To suggest that indigenous peoples are defending "rock," is, quite frankly, genocidal in its attempt to minimize the rationality of their self-defense. Even if it was just a rock, that doesn't erase their relationship.I have my grandmother's flatware, it is hardly just "aluminum," and it isn't nearly as important to me as my home or the memories they are a part of. I seriously doubt you'd reduce it in this way if you were victimized by this system in the same way Palestinians have.

I'm not sure if you intended to promote fascism, but you did whether you wanted to or not. It is crucial to interrogate our own assumptions and ways of knowing this world exactly because settler-colonial institutions exert so much power over how we are able to engage with the world. If something does not make sense to you, it is better to consider that you do not understand it well enough than assume that others are simply less reasonable than you.

Still the agreement between the zionist german bank and the nazis did break the anti-nazi boycott held in multiple countries

WTF