NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
- Fatah and Hamas in talks (context: Fatah was driven out by Hamas in 2007 after losing elections) - Fatah want to return to Gaza in a unified order (effectively giving everyone a seat in Gaza's future, including Hamas), committed to negotiations with Israel and establishing a Palestinian state. This would put Fatah in control - Hamas still refuse to recognize Israel (putting Hamas at odds with the PLO) - Abbas accused Hamas of giving Israel a pretext to destroy Gaza, which was met with criticism by Hamas calling October 7 a crucial moment in the Palestinian struggle - Hamas retain majority support in Gaza - Critics suspect Hamas' demands are designed to re-grow them slowly after the war has ended
Please add/correct the information if I missed anything.
On June 05 2024 19:38 Magic Powers wrote: - Fatah and Hamas in talks (context: Fatah was driven out by Hamas in 2007 after losing elections) - Fatah want to return to Gaza in a unified order (effectively giving everyone a seat in Gaza's future, including Hamas), committed to negotiations with Israel and establishing a Palestinian state. This would put Fatah in control - Hamas still refuse to recognize Israel (putting Hamas at odds with the PLO) - Abbas accused Hamas of giving Israel a pretext to destroy Gaza, which was met with criticism by Hamas calling October 7 a crucial moment in the Palestinian struggle - Hamas retain majority support in Gaza - Critics suspect Hamas' demands are designed to re-grow them slowly after the war has ended
Please add/correct the information if I missed anything.
Is “refuse to recognize Israel” a politically correct way of saying “does not want Israel to exist”? This was the language used around the time of the 6 day war, so I am assuming so. But Salazarz was saying Hamas has changed their messaging recently. But he never actually followed up and showed that to be true. So I have no idea. I don’t have any idea where or how people keep up on Hamas’s messaging and PR lol
On June 05 2024 19:38 Magic Powers wrote: - Fatah and Hamas in talks (context: Fatah was driven out by Hamas in 2007 after losing elections) - Fatah want to return to Gaza in a unified order (effectively giving everyone a seat in Gaza's future, including Hamas), committed to negotiations with Israel and establishing a Palestinian state. This would put Fatah in control - Hamas still refuse to recognize Israel (putting Hamas at odds with the PLO) - Abbas accused Hamas of giving Israel a pretext to destroy Gaza, which was met with criticism by Hamas calling October 7 a crucial moment in the Palestinian struggle - Hamas retain majority support in Gaza - Critics suspect Hamas' demands are designed to re-grow them slowly after the war has ended
Please add/correct the information if I missed anything.
Is “refuse to recognize Israel” a politically correct way of saying “does not want Israel to exist”? This was the language used around the time of the 6 day war, so I am assuming so. But Salazarz was saying Hamas has changed their messaging recently. But he never actually followed up and showed that to be true. So I have no idea. I don’t have any idea where or how people keep up on Hamas’s messaging and PR lol
I assume you're somehow blind to the double standard at play here.
On June 05 2024 19:38 Magic Powers wrote: - Fatah and Hamas in talks (context: Fatah was driven out by Hamas in 2007 after losing elections) - Fatah want to return to Gaza in a unified order (effectively giving everyone a seat in Gaza's future, including Hamas), committed to negotiations with Israel and establishing a Palestinian state. This would put Fatah in control - Hamas still refuse to recognize Israel (putting Hamas at odds with the PLO) - Abbas accused Hamas of giving Israel a pretext to destroy Gaza, which was met with criticism by Hamas calling October 7 a crucial moment in the Palestinian struggle - Hamas retain majority support in Gaza - Critics suspect Hamas' demands are designed to re-grow them slowly after the war has ended
Please add/correct the information if I missed anything.
Is “refuse to recognize Israel” a politically correct way of saying “does not want Israel to exist”? This was the language used around the time of the 6 day war, so I am assuming so. But Salazarz was saying Hamas has changed their messaging recently. But he never actually followed up and showed that to be true. So I have no idea. I don’t have any idea where or how people keep up on Hamas’s messaging and PR lol
I assume you're somehow blind to the double standard at play here.
Brother, I've been very clear that both Israelis and Palestinians clearly want the other to get loaded onto a space ship and shot towards the sun. They are 2 groups who want the same land. When you create a state in the 20th century, all land is already accounted for. There is no way to create Israel without dumpstering someone. Of course I recognize that to be true. I see nothing wrong with Palestinians hating all that.
On June 05 2024 19:38 Magic Powers wrote: - Fatah and Hamas in talks (context: Fatah was driven out by Hamas in 2007 after losing elections) - Fatah want to return to Gaza in a unified order (effectively giving everyone a seat in Gaza's future, including Hamas), committed to negotiations with Israel and establishing a Palestinian state. This would put Fatah in control - Hamas still refuse to recognize Israel (putting Hamas at odds with the PLO) - Abbas accused Hamas of giving Israel a pretext to destroy Gaza, which was met with criticism by Hamas calling October 7 a crucial moment in the Palestinian struggle - Hamas retain majority support in Gaza - Critics suspect Hamas' demands are designed to re-grow them slowly after the war has ended
Please add/correct the information if I missed anything.
Is “refuse to recognize Israel” a politically correct way of saying “does not want Israel to exist”? This was the language used around the time of the 6 day war, so I am assuming so. But Salazarz was saying Hamas has changed their messaging recently. But he never actually followed up and showed that to be true. So I have no idea. I don’t have any idea where or how people keep up on Hamas’s messaging and PR lol
I assume you're somehow blind to the double standard at play here.
Brother, I've been very clear that both Israelis and Palestinians clearly want the other to get loaded onto a space ship and shot towards the sun. They are 2 groups who want the same land. When you create a state in the 20th century, all land is already accounted for. There is no way to create Israel without dumpstering someone. Of course I recognize that to be true. I see nothing wrong with Palestinians hating all that.
Yeah there's no way out of that kind of cycle imo. The Palestinians are never, ever going to forget what's happened this year. They won't be able to because most of the children are going to grow up severely impaired from the famine being inflicted on them. They will ALL grow up to not want Israel to exist.
It should be treated as given now and taken into consideration, rather than everyone expecting one side or the other to back away from it.
On June 05 2024 19:38 Magic Powers wrote: - Fatah and Hamas in talks (context: Fatah was driven out by Hamas in 2007 after losing elections) - Fatah want to return to Gaza in a unified order (effectively giving everyone a seat in Gaza's future, including Hamas), committed to negotiations with Israel and establishing a Palestinian state. This would put Fatah in control - Hamas still refuse to recognize Israel (putting Hamas at odds with the PLO) - Abbas accused Hamas of giving Israel a pretext to destroy Gaza, which was met with criticism by Hamas calling October 7 a crucial moment in the Palestinian struggle - Hamas retain majority support in Gaza - Critics suspect Hamas' demands are designed to re-grow them slowly after the war has ended
Please add/correct the information if I missed anything.
Is “refuse to recognize Israel” a politically correct way of saying “does not want Israel to exist”? This was the language used around the time of the 6 day war, so I am assuming so. But Salazarz was saying Hamas has changed their messaging recently. But he never actually followed up and showed that to be true. So I have no idea. I don’t have any idea where or how people keep up on Hamas’s messaging and PR lol
I assume you're somehow blind to the double standard at play here.
Brother, I've been very clear that both Israelis and Palestinians clearly want the other to get loaded onto a space ship and shot towards the sun. They are 2 groups who want the same land. When you create a state in the 20th century, all land is already accounted for. There is no way to create Israel without dumpstering someone. Of course I recognize that to be true. I see nothing wrong with Palestinians hating all that.
Yeah there's no way out of that kind of cycle imo. The Palestinians are never, ever going to forget what's happened this year. They won't be able to because most of the children are going to grow up severely impaired from the famine being inflicted on them. They will ALL grow up to not want Israel to exist.
It should be treated as given now and taken into consideration, rather than everyone expecting one side or the other to back away from it.
Fatah is also quite popular. They recognize Israel and want peace.
On June 05 2024 19:38 Magic Powers wrote: - Fatah and Hamas in talks (context: Fatah was driven out by Hamas in 2007 after losing elections) - Fatah want to return to Gaza in a unified order (effectively giving everyone a seat in Gaza's future, including Hamas), committed to negotiations with Israel and establishing a Palestinian state. This would put Fatah in control - Hamas still refuse to recognize Israel (putting Hamas at odds with the PLO) - Abbas accused Hamas of giving Israel a pretext to destroy Gaza, which was met with criticism by Hamas calling October 7 a crucial moment in the Palestinian struggle - Hamas retain majority support in Gaza - Critics suspect Hamas' demands are designed to re-grow them slowly after the war has ended
Please add/correct the information if I missed anything.
Is “refuse to recognize Israel” a politically correct way of saying “does not want Israel to exist”? This was the language used around the time of the 6 day war, so I am assuming so. But Salazarz was saying Hamas has changed their messaging recently. But he never actually followed up and showed that to be true. So I have no idea. I don’t have any idea where or how people keep up on Hamas’s messaging and PR lol
I assume you're somehow blind to the double standard at play here.
Brother, I've been very clear that both Israelis and Palestinians clearly want the other to get loaded onto a space ship and shot towards the sun. They are 2 groups who want the same land. When you create a state in the 20th century, all land is already accounted for. There is no way to create Israel without dumpstering someone. Of course I recognize that to be true. I see nothing wrong with Palestinians hating all that.
Yeah there's no way out of that kind of cycle imo. The Palestinians are never, ever going to forget what's happened this year. They won't be able to because most of the children are going to grow up severely impaired from the famine being inflicted on them. They will ALL grow up to not want Israel to exist.
It should be treated as given now and taken into consideration, rather than everyone expecting one side or the other to back away from it.
Fatah is also quite popular. They recognize Israel and want peace.
The issue with that is that the people might want peace and will give anything for this to stop right now. But that's right now. It won't last.
On June 05 2024 19:38 Magic Powers wrote: - Fatah and Hamas in talks (context: Fatah was driven out by Hamas in 2007 after losing elections) - Fatah want to return to Gaza in a unified order (effectively giving everyone a seat in Gaza's future, including Hamas), committed to negotiations with Israel and establishing a Palestinian state. This would put Fatah in control - Hamas still refuse to recognize Israel (putting Hamas at odds with the PLO) - Abbas accused Hamas of giving Israel a pretext to destroy Gaza, which was met with criticism by Hamas calling October 7 a crucial moment in the Palestinian struggle - Hamas retain majority support in Gaza - Critics suspect Hamas' demands are designed to re-grow them slowly after the war has ended
Please add/correct the information if I missed anything.
Is “refuse to recognize Israel” a politically correct way of saying “does not want Israel to exist”? This was the language used around the time of the 6 day war, so I am assuming so. But Salazarz was saying Hamas has changed their messaging recently. But he never actually followed up and showed that to be true. So I have no idea. I don’t have any idea where or how people keep up on Hamas’s messaging and PR lol
I assume you're somehow blind to the double standard at play here.
Brother, I've been very clear that both Israelis and Palestinians clearly want the other to get loaded onto a space ship and shot towards the sun. They are 2 groups who want the same land. When you create a state in the 20th century, all land is already accounted for. There is no way to create Israel without dumpstering someone. Of course I recognize that to be true. I see nothing wrong with Palestinians hating all that.
Yeah there's no way out of that kind of cycle imo. The Palestinians are never, ever going to forget what's happened this year. They won't be able to because most of the children are going to grow up severely impaired from the famine being inflicted on them. They will ALL grow up to not want Israel to exist.
It should be treated as given now and taken into consideration, rather than everyone expecting one side or the other to back away from it.
I agree. There's absolutely no reason to think either Israel or Palestine's populations are even capable of peace at this point. I think the situation had a 0% chance of ever being good a year ago. But its somewhere around -9999% now. The core dynamics of the conflict make it inherently diplomatically impossible.
As you point out, I think even in some wild world where some kinda 2 state solution is agreed to, both populations are way more radicalized than they were before. They will just fight again later even if they reach some kinda "yay peace!!!" deal today.
does anyone have a good podcast or series about the Iranian Revolution? its been a blindspot to me with regards to this current conflict and history of the middle east, and i feel like it was an earth shattering moment that forever changed how the West views the middle east, but especially how it sees Islamic countries. (if only Mike Duncan did a season of his Revolutions on that one sigh)
this current conflict has made me so ashamed to be an American. all of the "Western values and democracy is important shit" is meaningless unless you can hold your allies to a higher standard than a literal terrorist organization. small wonder its practically the US and Israel alone together on this conflict.
the thing that changed my mind to be more pro Palestine was the simple fact that Israel has always gone for the collective punishment routine after an incident or an attack. they are several orders of magnitude more powerful, and resemble Russia more than any Western nation. like does Israel watch Waco videos as a blueprint rather than a cautionary tale? the fuck is wrong with them, as a truck driver seeing a video of israeli civilians beat the shit out of a driver because he may have been giving Gazan's food is just something else. you'd think survivors of the fucking Holocaust would drill into their children the idea that dehumanizing people is how we got to fascism and the genocide of millions.
ceasefire, make a policy towards arresting bibi and hamas leaders, and rebuild gaza and give them self autonomy ffs
@Husyelt I would suspect that many descendants of the survivors of the Holocaust also recognize that when someone declares their intent to commit genocide on your people, you should take them seriously. The government of Gaza has openly declared their desire to commit genocide on all Jewish people around the world. Most Israelis didn't take that government seriously until October 7th and paid a price for it. Now most Israelis do take them seriously. They see the genocidal maniacs for what they are and are willing to "kill Hitler in his crib" as the saying goes, to protect their own people. People will then call them all sorts of terrible names for doing it. That's where we are right now.
There is a greater issue that I've been mulling over a lot and that's, how do you end the cycle of violence? I can see three viable possibilities.
1 - Very early in this thread, I suggested a 50 year occupation of Gaza. A total Big Brother system. Total surveillance. Total control of the education system. In those 50 years, there's enough time for the hardliners to become inept elderly men. Two new generations are born with Israeli law as the way of life and slowly you turn Gaza over to those new generations. As a comparison, we saw 20 years of progress in Afghanistan and true improvement in that country, but then we completely pulled the plug 30 years too early rather than a slow drawdown and it went right back into the shitter.
Unlike the US in Afghanistan, Israel has a major incentive to not pull out of Gaza too early. If Israel would have gone with a plan like that, it would have cost the Israelis more of their own lives, but would have resulted in less Gazan deaths. I can understand why the Israeli government chose not to do it, but I still think it would be best.
2 - Another option is to go the WWII route. Make your enemies hate and fear War more than they hate you. People love to credit the Marshall plan for Germany's change, but injecting money alone doesn't do shit... just look at Afghanistan or Iraq. That investment may be important towards created a great ally in the future (see modern Germany and Japan), but I don't think that is what stopped their warmongering.
When we look at differences between WWI and WWII and why Germany went right back to war basically one generation later, there are some differences besides the Marshall plan.
Germany's army was defeated in WWI, but their people went largely unscathed. Germany got defeated on the front and decided to surrender to preserve their young men, but could have held out for years in trench warfare. Right until the end, the German people would send their children off to war for the glory of the country, thinking they would win. Part of Hitler's rise to power was by saying that Jews stabbed the German people in the back and that's why they surrendered in WWI. The people could believe it because the war didn't come to them.
WWII took it to the German people. German cities in ruin. Once their cities were ground to dust with tens of thousands killed in each, it would be hard for the German people to feel like the war was going well. What I'd bet most felt at that point is utterly defeated and afraid, begging for mercy. It was only once they reached that point that a magnanimous victor could enact the Marshall Plan.
I'd suggest that for Germany to be the great peaceful nation it is today, Dresden and the like were necessary. Same with the nukes and Japan.
Going this route is a tough one though. If you punch someone, they're likely to punch you back. Instead, you need to absolutely destroy someone so they will cower in fear around you.
Likewise, if you kill someone's child, they're going to remember it and want revenge. If you leave everything they've ever known as rubble, killing many of their friends and family in the process, there is a point where they will cower in fear. That fear has to be stronger than their desire for revenge.
It is possible to get the Gazans to the point where a mother would turn in her own child for even thinking about retaliation. Turning him in may save her other children from Israeli retaliatory strikes. It is at that point that Israel could rebuild Gaza and the Gazan people with an economic plan that would give them a future to look forward to.
Unfortunately, religious fanaticism makes this one even harder to achieve and you'll probably have to push even further to make it stick. At some point, you aren't very far from option 3.
3 - Genocide. It has worked many times throughout history, but it'd be extremely tough to execute in the modern era. From a practical perspective, there are Palestinians and Palestinian supporters around the world. Israel could commit genocide on Gaza, but doesn't have the firepower to go after Palestinian supporters everywhere. That would create a situation of hatred worldwide without the necessary fear to prevent retaliation from the entire Muslim world especially when sanctioned by almost everybody else. So I list it as an option to solve the immediate conflict, but it may create a greater conflict and not be much of a solution at all.
There's also the moral perspective where this seems wrong, although very common in human history (see Rome's many genocides or read Who We Are and How We Got Here which explores genes throughout human history and discusses many genocides that are pre written history).
I still like option 1 the best. Israel seems to be taking option 2 right now. I still haven't seen any other option floated that even has a chance of lasting peace. Everything else seems to get us right back where we started. Maybe that's simply the preferred status?
On June 06 2024 16:03 RenSC2 wrote: @Husyelt I would suspect that many descendants of the survivors of the Holocaust also recognize that when someone declares their intent to commit genocide on your people, you should take them seriously. The government of Gaza has openly declared their desire to commit genocide on all Jewish people around the world. Most Israelis didn't take that government seriously until October 7th and paid a price for it. Now most Israelis do take them seriously. They see the genocidal maniacs for what they are and are willing to "kill Hitler in his crib" as the saying goes, to protect their own people. People will then call them all sorts of terrible names for doing it. That's where we are right now.
There is a greater issue that I've been mulling over a lot and that's, how do you end the cycle of violence? I can see three viable possibilities.
1 - Very early in this thread, I suggested a 50 year occupation of Gaza. A total Big Brother system. Total surveillance. Total control of the education system. In those 50 years, there's enough time for the hardliners to become inept elderly men. Two new generations are born with Israeli law as the way of life and slowly you turn Gaza over to those new generations. As a comparison, we saw 20 years of progress in Afghanistan and true improvement in that country, but then we completely pulled the plug 30 years too early rather than a slow drawdown and it went right back into the shitter.
Unlike the US in Afghanistan, Israel has a major incentive to not pull out of Gaza too early. If Israel would have gone with a plan like that, it would have cost the Israelis more of their own lives, but would have resulted in less Gazan deaths. I can understand why the Israeli government chose not to do it, but I still think it would be best.
2 - Another option is to go the WWII route. Make your enemies hate and fear War more than they hate you. People love to credit the Marshall plan for Germany's change, but injecting money alone doesn't do shit... just look at Afghanistan or Iraq. That investment may be important towards created a great ally in the future (see modern Germany and Japan), but I don't think that is what stopped their warmongering.
When we look at differences between WWI and WWII and why Germany went right back to war basically one generation later, there are some differences besides the Marshall plan.
Germany's army was defeated in WWI, but their people went largely unscathed. Germany got defeated on the front and decided to surrender to preserve their young men, but could have held out for years in trench warfare. Right until the end, the German people would send their children off to war for the glory of the country, thinking they would win. Part of Hitler's rise to power was by saying that Jews stabbed the German people in the back and that's why they surrendered in WWI. The people could believe it because the war didn't come to them.
WWII took it to the German people. German cities in ruin. Once their cities were ground to dust with tens of thousands killed in each, it would be hard for the German people to feel like the war was going well. What I'd bet most felt at that point is utterly defeated and afraid, begging for mercy. It was only once they reached that point that a magnanimous victor could enact the Marshall Plan.
I'd suggest that for Germany to be the great peaceful nation it is today, Dresden and the like were necessary. Same with the nukes and Japan.
Going this route is a tough one though. If you punch someone, they're likely to punch you back. Instead, you need to absolutely destroy someone so they will cower in fear around you.
Likewise, if you kill someone's child, they're going to remember it and want revenge. If you leave everything they've ever known as rubble, killing many of their friends and family in the process, there is a point where they will cower in fear. That fear has to be stronger than their desire for revenge.
It is possible to get the Gazans to the point where a mother would turn in her own child for even thinking about retaliation. Turning him in may save her other children from Israeli retaliatory strikes. It is at that point that Israel could rebuild Gaza and the Gazan people with an economic plan that would give them a future to look forward to.
Unfortunately, religious fanaticism makes this one even harder to achieve and you'll probably have to push even further to make it stick. At some point, you aren't very far from option 3.
3 - Genocide. It has worked many times throughout history, but it'd be extremely tough to execute in the modern era. From a practical perspective, there are Palestinians and Palestinian supporters around the world. Israel could commit genocide on Gaza, but doesn't have the firepower to go after Palestinian supporters everywhere. That would create a situation of hatred worldwide without the necessary fear to prevent retaliation from the entire Muslim world especially when sanctioned by almost everybody else. So I list it as an option to solve the immediate conflict, but it may create a greater conflict and not be much of a solution at all.
There's also the moral perspective where this seems wrong, although very common in human history (see Rome's many genocides or read Who We Are and How We Got Here which explores genes throughout human history and discusses many genocides that are pre written history).
I still like option 1 the best. Israel seems to be taking option 2 right now. I still haven't seen any other option floated that even has a chance of lasting peace. Everything else seems to get us right back where we started. Maybe that's simply the preferred status?
Complain about "genocidal maniacs" and then casually talks about committing a genocide, a zionist at his best. The first option is already there since age, all young israeli can enjoy dominating and humiliating palestinian in the west bank during their military service, killing approximativaly 300 per years including 2 yo terrorist but you don't get either because well because well zionism as a supremacist ideology is what it is... And obviously the obvious passage on germany as if it was the same context and condition with a few bs here and here, once again, typical zionist.
On June 05 2024 19:38 Magic Powers wrote: - Fatah and Hamas in talks (context: Fatah was driven out by Hamas in 2007 after losing elections) - Fatah want to return to Gaza in a unified order (effectively giving everyone a seat in Gaza's future, including Hamas), committed to negotiations with Israel and establishing a Palestinian state. This would put Fatah in control - Hamas still refuse to recognize Israel (putting Hamas at odds with the PLO) - Abbas accused Hamas of giving Israel a pretext to destroy Gaza, which was met with criticism by Hamas calling October 7 a crucial moment in the Palestinian struggle - Hamas retain majority support in Gaza - Critics suspect Hamas' demands are designed to re-grow them slowly after the war has ended
Please add/correct the information if I missed anything.
Is “refuse to recognize Israel” a politically correct way of saying “does not want Israel to exist”? This was the language used around the time of the 6 day war, so I am assuming so. But Salazarz was saying Hamas has changed their messaging recently. But he never actually followed up and showed that to be true. So I have no idea. I don’t have any idea where or how people keep up on Hamas’s messaging and PR lol
I assume you're somehow blind to the double standard at play here.
Brother, I've been very clear that both Israelis and Palestinians clearly want the other to get loaded onto a space ship and shot towards the sun. They are 2 groups who want the same land. When you create a state in the 20th century, all land is already accounted for. There is no way to create Israel without dumpstering someone. Of course I recognize that to be true. I see nothing wrong with Palestinians hating all that.
Yeah there's no way out of that kind of cycle imo. The Palestinians are never, ever going to forget what's happened this year. They won't be able to because most of the children are going to grow up severely impaired from the famine being inflicted on them. They will ALL grow up to not want Israel to exist.
It should be treated as given now and taken into consideration, rather than everyone expecting one side or the other to back away from it.
Fatah is also quite popular. They recognize Israel and want peace.
I'm not sure about popular. All they have to show for the last 20 years are cancelled elections, settler encroachments and no shot at a Palestinian state to speak of.
On June 05 2024 19:38 Magic Powers wrote: - Fatah and Hamas in talks (context: Fatah was driven out by Hamas in 2007 after losing elections) - Fatah want to return to Gaza in a unified order (effectively giving everyone a seat in Gaza's future, including Hamas), committed to negotiations with Israel and establishing a Palestinian state. This would put Fatah in control - Hamas still refuse to recognize Israel (putting Hamas at odds with the PLO) - Abbas accused Hamas of giving Israel a pretext to destroy Gaza, which was met with criticism by Hamas calling October 7 a crucial moment in the Palestinian struggle - Hamas retain majority support in Gaza - Critics suspect Hamas' demands are designed to re-grow them slowly after the war has ended
Please add/correct the information if I missed anything.
Is “refuse to recognize Israel” a politically correct way of saying “does not want Israel to exist”? This was the language used around the time of the 6 day war, so I am assuming so. But Salazarz was saying Hamas has changed their messaging recently. But he never actually followed up and showed that to be true. So I have no idea. I don’t have any idea where or how people keep up on Hamas’s messaging and PR lol
I assume you're somehow blind to the double standard at play here.
Brother, I've been very clear that both Israelis and Palestinians clearly want the other to get loaded onto a space ship and shot towards the sun. They are 2 groups who want the same land. When you create a state in the 20th century, all land is already accounted for. There is no way to create Israel without dumpstering someone. Of course I recognize that to be true. I see nothing wrong with Palestinians hating all that.
Yeah there's no way out of that kind of cycle imo. The Palestinians are never, ever going to forget what's happened this year. They won't be able to because most of the children are going to grow up severely impaired from the famine being inflicted on them. They will ALL grow up to not want Israel to exist.
It should be treated as given now and taken into consideration, rather than everyone expecting one side or the other to back away from it.
Fatah is also quite popular. They recognize Israel and want peace.
I'm not sure about popular. All they have to show for the last 20 years are cancelled elections, settler encroachments and no shot at a Palestinian state to speak of.
I'm not familiar enough with everything surrounding Fatah so feel free to enlighten me but how much of that is because of Fatah, and how is because of Israel (and the rest of the western world).
On May 30 2024 22:39 Mohdoo wrote: I don’t think you are acknowledging the psychological and cultural impacts of this amount of time of occupation. For Palestinians in both Gaza and West Bank, this situation is the only identity Israel has to them. Generations of this situation does not allow for the kind of forgiveness being described. There is no historical precedent for what you are describing. If anything history paints the opposite pictute
There's no historical precedent for the sort of hatred you're describing, plenty of precedent for the opposite. There's been far worse violence and atrocities committed by various peoples in the past, and more often than not the hatreds diminish if not outright disappear at most one generation later, and often even faster than that.
Take Japanese occupation of Korea for example. It was no less cruel and oppressive than what Israel has done to the Palestinians, and had lasted for a similar amount of time. There was of course plenty of lingering resentment and friction once the occupation ended, but most 'normal' people moved on very quickly, and interstate diplomacy between the nations has been functioning just fine despite plenty of painful issues that remain unresolved to this day.
Besides, it doesn't matter if Palestine doesn't trust Israel. All that needs to happen is a belief for Palestinian people that they might have a future that worth living for, and radical terrorism will have a far more difficult time gathering martyrs to their bloody cause.
Both are occupations but the specifics make the comparison difficult to apply. Consider what the occupation was defined as for Koreans. Now consider the extent to which that occupation was ended.
Apply that same thought process to Israel and Palestinians. Israel’s entire existence is defined as an occupation to Palestinians. Stopping settlements does not come close to what Palestinians would view the same way as Koreans viewed Japanese withdrawal. You are taking 2 wildly different situations and applying different solutions while saying the result would be the same. It’s not a good comparison at all.
I don't believe even for a moment that any significant percentage of now living Palestinians genuinely cares about or believes in the 'extended occupation' being the existence of Israel as a state. There aren't any Palestinians alive today who were there for the creation of Israel, and it's not as if a unified Palestinian identity or national spirit even existed back then. Even Hamas has toned down their rhetoric somewhat and is stepping away from the 'necessity' of complete destruction of Israel. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the struggle against Israel's oppression is a more significant portion of Palestinian national identity than any particular land they dwell on. If the oppression were to end, you would create a large number of Palestinians who would see any attacks against Israel as a betrayal of their hard-earned nationhood, as something that endangers their way of life and risks throwing what freedom they finally gained back into the fire of senseless violence. Right now, such attitude simply cannot exist.
As for Korea's occupation by Japan not being the same, well sure. It wasn't the same. But you claimed that there is simply too much pain and violence between the two sides for them to ever heal, that such past simply cannot be moved on from. And I just disagree with that entirely. People move on from violence and hate incredibly quickly once the most acute triggers of said hate are gone. History is full of examples of that, and frankly I struggle to think of places where the opposite is true the way you claim it is.
This post helped me understand where our difference in understanding may be. I think it would be helpful for both of us to clearly state what we believe the maximum amount of Israel existing that Palestinians can accept long term.
Here is what I think: borders prior to the 6 day war will never be acceptable long term to Palestinians. I think it’s possible they could eventually accept Israel existing. But at the very least, borders prior to 6 day war will always lead to some form of persistent violence by Palestinians towards Israel.
What do you think? What do you think is the ’maximum allowable Israel existence for Palestinians to be long term satisfied? Assuming in some world where Israel stopped settlements and whatnot. What borders do you think would be long term stable for Palestinians such that violence can stop?
You mentioned you believe Hamas is open to Israel existing. Can you clarify where you are reading that? Where is this belief coming from? I am not aware of that.
Apologies it took me a while to get back to this!
So, I think 50+ years ago there was definitely a large number of Arabs who were unwilling to accept existence of Israel entirely; there was a large number of people who still remembered how they or their families got kicked out of their homes, how entire towns were driven out if not straight up murdered. Today, those people are gone. Vast majority of the people who live in current day West Bank or Gaza couldn't care less whether Tel Aviv is inhabited by Arabs, Jews, or pink unicorns. It makes no difference whatsoever to their lives. The reason they talk so much about destruction of Israel and death to all Jews, is because to them Israel is synonymous with occupation, settlements, and violence. There's bound to be friction and resentment left over no matter what happens tomorrow for sure, but if Israel would just stop murdering Palestinians for a little while, I have no doubt we'd see a sharp drop in radical sentiments and support for radical groups.
I see a lot of people saying stuff like, 'if Palestinians just stopped terrorism they could have a better life' -- but for Palestinians, there's no 'better life' to refer to as a comparison. Most of them have been dealing with random bombings, evictions, restrictions on movement, and just overall shittiness for as long as they have been alive. They literally can't even imagine a better life, so any conversation about how much better things can get if they just do X or stop doing Y is inherently doomed to fail.
As for Hamas being open to Israel existing... I mean, they did update their stupid charter, and they did say they're willing to consider multi-decade 'ceasefires' and such. It doesn't even really matter whether they actually accept Israel existing or not, though. Hamas does not have the capability to threaten existence of Israel in any meaningful way; they can of course continue to carry out terror attacks and being a nuisance in general, but they would 100% lose a huge amount of influence and resources if Israel just stopped trying so hard to turn every single Palestinian against them.
Most people would much rather work on their farms or herd their sheep or whatever it is that Palestinians usually do than throw rocks at IDF checkpoints and run away from air strikes. And if life without air strikes, bulldozers, and checkpoints becomes a reality, suddenly any entity that threatens that, no matter how righteously justified by whatever religious bullshit they might be, will lose a lot of sway.
There's absolutely no reason to think either Israel or Palestine's populations are even capable of peace at this point. I think the situation had a 0% chance of ever being good a year ago. But its somewhere around -9999% now. The core dynamics of the conflict make it inherently diplomatically impossible.
As you point out, I think even in some wild world where some kinda 2 state solution is agreed to, both populations are way more radicalized than they were before. They will just fight again later even if they reach some kinda "yay peace!!!" deal today.
Israel's population would accept peace as soon as US / Europe collectively put their foot down and say, 'no more.' There's no way Israel would jeopardize all the support and trade with the West over continuation of their punitive missions or their stupidass settlements. They'd complain, no doubt, but at the end of the day, they'd have no choice but to go with it.
On June 06 2024 19:01 Salazarz wrote: Most people would much rather work on their farms or herd their sheep or whatever it is that Palestinians usually do
I honestly don’t understand posts like this. The ignorance is hard to comprehend. The population density is far too high for that kind of pastoral lifestyle and the demographic pyramid is absurdly bottom heavy.
The average Palestinian doesn’t have a job. They’re likely a child, living in multigenerational shared housing, without employment or education, and dependent on foreign aid. They spend their time alternating between nothing at all and having more kids.
The idea that given the chance they’d love to tend their flocks of sheep is just weird. The assumptions involved in getting there are all wrong. That is not to say that no productive labour happens in Palestine, only that we cannot simply imagine rural Wales and assume it probably looks like that. It is an extremely unusual state that has been created by extremely unusual circumstances.
On June 06 2024 19:01 Salazarz wrote: Most people would much rather work on their farms or herd their sheep or whatever it is that Palestinians usually do
I honestly don’t understand posts like this. The ignorance is hard to comprehend. The population density is far too high for that kind of pastoral lifestyle and the demographic pyramid is absurdly bottom heavy.
The average Palestinian doesn’t have a job. They’re likely a child, living in multigenerational shared housing, without employment or education, and dependent on foreign aid. They spend their time alternating between nothing at all and having more kids.
The idea that given the chance they’d love to tend their flocks of sheep is just weird. The assumptions involved in getting there are all wrong. That is not to say that no productive labour happens in Palestine, only that we cannot simply imagine rural Wales and assume it probably looks like that. It is an extremely unusual state that has been created by extremely unusual circumstances.
The average Palestinian doesn't have a job at least in part because they're under constant (semi)-blockade, and because nobody wants to build infrastructure or factories etc in a place where they might well be bombed to smithereens at any time assuming the local wankers don't mess it up first. There are plenty of places around the world where people without proper education are living productive and relatively content lives, with population densities that are higher than that of Gaza. Cheap labor is still very much in demand, the problem is lack of stability.
If you want to believe that all Palestinians are fundamentally broken and would prefer to perpetually watch their homes be demolished and families murdered for the pay-off of occasionally getting a chance to murder a Jew, that's cool, I suppose. In my experience, vast majority of people turn away from violence as soon as they're given the chance, and I believe Palestinians would do just that.
Because I'm seeing people posting about how much the Palestinians are backing Hamas - I'd like to point out that this is entirely of Israel's own creating. Israel's actions have driven a populace that was largely distrusting of Hamas into their arms. Below are links to a poll published in late October of last year by Arab Barometer, sadly the full article is stuck behind a paywall on another site, and an interview on CNN discussing it from December 7, 2023.
On June 06 2024 16:03 RenSC2 wrote: They see the genocidal maniacs for what they are and are willing to "kill Hitler in his crib" as the saying goes, to protect their own people.
What I find interesting about this sentence is that it went from plural to singular, and, well, we aren't really killing Hitler are we? Who is this Hitler guy that we're killing? We're more killing "the Germans" in their crib, but if we write this we don't look as good as we want, do we.
On June 06 2024 16:03 RenSC2 wrote: 1 - Very early in this thread, I suggested a 50 year occupation of Gaza. A total Big Brother system. Total surveillance. Total control of the education system. In those 50 years, there's enough time for the hardliners to become inept elderly men. Two new generations are born with Israeli law as the way of life and slowly you turn Gaza over to those new generations. As a comparison, we saw 20 years of progress in Afghanistan and true improvement in that country, but then we completely pulled the plug 30 years too early rather than a slow drawdown and it went right back into the shitter.
Unlike the US in Afghanistan, Israel has a major incentive to not pull out of Gaza too early. If Israel would have gone with a plan like that, it would have cost the Israelis more of their own lives, but would have resulted in less Gazan deaths. I can understand why the Israeli government chose not to do it, but I still think it would be best.
People don't take your plan seriously because in the real world we already have an example of how Israel big brothers a place and what it does to the people living here, so we have trouble with the notion that you believe in your own argument. Of course if Israel occupies Gaza their goal will not be to turn Palestinians into humans as you're suggesting here, their goal will be to slowly take their land through violence and settlements like they've been doing in the West Bank.
On June 06 2024 16:03 RenSC2 wrote: I'd suggest that for Germany to be the great peaceful nation it is today, Dresden and the like were necessary. Same with the nukes and Japan.
Suffering doesn't make people better, friend, it just makes them suffer. If you had done Dresden and then you had continued to fuck Germans over after WW2, then Germany would not have been peaceful about it. As the world goes more into neoliberalism and conditions degrade for people overall, wars become increasingly more likely again. People don't become peaceful or agressive based on how you've acted toward them in the past, they become peaceful or agressive based on how you're acting toward them right now.
On June 06 2024 16:03 RenSC2 wrote: I still like option 1 the best. Israel seems to be taking option 2 right now. I still haven't seen any other option floated that even has a chance of lasting peace. Everything else seems to get us right back where we started. Maybe that's simply the preferred status?
There is also a fourth option, by the way. You could make most Israelis leave and go to the US and Europe. This would cause a lot less deaths and suffering than the three options you're considering right now, so maybe you ought to consider this one?
It's not my preferred option because I'm of the opinion that people are capable of living in peace next to each other when there is no system of supremacy in place to crush that harmony, but if I believed that this was impossible, then surely I would consider leaving before I'd consider killing hundreds of thousands of people to get to stay here.
EPT
