|
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. |
Oops formatting fail sorry. On my phone lol
|
On October 15 2023 07:50 Acrofales wrote:
So how do we get from where we are to where people are able and willing to sit down and actually try to achieve a solution? Well, obviously not by flattening Gaza, and equally obviously not by repeatedly massacring kibutzes. So as long as both sides still seem committed to doing that, I say the best solution is to condemn both sides escalating violence, and hope that when it does eventually die down, whoever step up to lead Israel and Palestina, are serious about giving peace a try.
Condemning is likely worse than doing nothing because it provides the sensation of impact or progress. I think doing nothing is better than anything that boils down to circlejerking about peace. So long as major world powers view the Middle East as pawns to use against their enemies, they will continue to enable poor behavior and allow the situation to continue.
As lolfail indicated, complete demilitarization of all parties involved is the only non-violent solution. Ask Ukraine how much value is contributed by promises and prayers. Or ask a million other groups throughout history. It doesn’t mean anything. Politics can change. Dynamics change and people lie. I entirely reject the idea that either faction can be trusted to not kill each other so long as they have the capability.
At their core, the 2 factions have deeply unreasonable belief systems influencing their perspectives. They think the land itself has supernatural importance. It’s important to remember many of them actually think these things are true. The adults in the room need to take the toys away and not allow their beliefs to make the world a worse place. The disagreements are not valid and the perspectives are not valid. But we enable their delusions because it provides military and financial benefit to the larger powers of the world.
Either find a way to convince world powers to stop using the Middle East as a proxy, or do nothing IMO. But I think it’s very important to not allow people to experience a false sense of progress when none of the factions involved can be trusted.
|
IMO this situation is un-resolvable in any peaceful or satisfactory way. Especially that neither party is on the "good" side here. I can only feel bad for the Palestinians, who are the biggest victims here.
|
On October 15 2023 11:44 Manit0u wrote:
IMO this situation is un-resolvable in any peaceful or satisfactory way. Especially that neither party is on the "good" side here. I can only feel bad for the Palestinians, who are the biggest victims here.
Yeah. Too many fanatics on both sides. Fucking religion.
At this point, basically the only resolution i see is one side just packing their stuff and leaving. Which also won't happen, because packing up your country isn't really an easy thing to do. So people will suffer and die there for ages, with not solution in sight.
|
United States10026 Posts
I agree. There genuinely isn't any good solution right now that would solve anything. There are just too many layers to the issue that it would take centuries to undo the mess. It's like Riot's spaghetti code in League.
|
On October 15 2023 04:16 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 03:44 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option. I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas. Since I’ve been the one answering questions rather than asking them, let me first make sure I understand your perspective: are you saying there is a zero violence solution right now? Is there a way for Israel to have confidence Hamas will not try to kill Israelis? So far, I have only seen people suggest things that they agree are deeply unlikely if not impossible as a solution. Is there a solution that you think is likely to occur which does not involve violence on either side? I want to make sure I am understanding your perspective before I respond because I don’t want to respond to the wrong ideas. Mm, not quite yet. Near as I can tell the only way what you’re proposing is a “solution” is if it’s a “Final Solution,” i.e. systematically killing every Palestinian so they don’t have a chance to radicalize. Don’t beat around the bush. Is that what you’re advocating (or at least saying you “couldn’t ethically criticize if Israel did it)?
I’d be more surprised if Mohdoo had a solution for anything that didn’t involve systematically removing an entire group of people so the remainder can live in harmony. Might as well make Mohdoo island and archipelago.
|
The notion that this conflict cannot be resolved without complete extermination of one of the sides or similarly unrealistic complete demilitarization of both sides is laughable. People aren't werewolves, and radical extremism in Gaza doesn't happen because of 'cultural incompatibilities' or 'religious conflict', it happens because of an ever-growing list of slights committed against the people living there, both real and made up, and because people living there have pretty much nothing to lose. You don't have to go far for proof of this -- even the similarly mistreated West Bank is far more peaceful and less prone to radicalization than the Gaza strip is. If Israel truly and genuinely wished for violence to end, they'd start investing into building a way for Palestinians to live in a way that makes violent suicide attacks a less attractive option, and give them a way of life that actually makes life worth living. Unfortunately, violent attacks from Hamas are useful to keep attention away from their continued settlement expansion and general lack of any desire whatsoever to solve the territorial disputes with Palestine, so they're quite okay with the status quo, even if the said status quo involves Israelis dying now and then.
Ask Ukraine how much value is contributed by promises and prayers. Or ask a million other groups throughout history.
Since you are bringing history up, how many examples are there in history where violence and oppression has ever solved conflicts such as this? Going back as far as recorded history goes, vast majority of rulers and conquerors understood the necessity of allowing minorities / rebellious groups to live in peace and relative prosperity, to enjoy reasonable rights and have something to lose if they were to rebel. Ancient Persians understood this, the Romans understood this, the Arab Sheikhs and Caliphs understood this, even the fucking Mongols understood this -- but somehow today bombing millions of people into submission is presented as viable method of pacifying terrorists and 'self defense'? That's just ridiculous.
|
On October 15 2023 08:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 08:08 lolfail9001 wrote:
Hypothetical demilitarisation of Israel has one minor (/s) issue: what are you going to do about it's neighbours? As we learn from history, the only thing stopping them is the fact that Israel is militarised enough. As such, it is yet another option straight from land of pink unicorns unless you go ahead and demilitarise entirety of MENA in process. In which case you are now proposing what is essentially an occupation of Afghanistan but 100 times larger. I think the two attempts at that failing is enough of a hint, isn't it?
Talking about Arab neighbours, the fact that they don't share the blame for state of Palestine every time the topic is brought up, is something i find deeply hilarious. If you scroll back a few pages you'll find I mentioned that they (1) guarantee Israel's borders and (2) a large UN peacekeeping force is permanently stationed there tasked with protecting the borders (as well as dealing with internal strife). I agree that any remotely peaceful solution will require the cooperation of Israel's neighbours. Luckily a lot has changed since the Yom Kippur war, and I'd say peace would be fairly easily accomplished with Egypt and Jordan. If Hezbollah is defanged then Lebanon is easy too, which leaves Syria. Maybe they can be strongarmed into trying if Golan Heights are returned?
Disarming Israel is not a serious proposal. No country that was invaded multiple times by their neighbours is going to do that for good reason. UN peacekeepers have never been enough in any conflict and relying on security guarantees makes your safety dependent on the internal politics of other countries. There's peace with Egypt and Jordan because they lost and Israel has a much stronger army. Hatred of Jews is still widespread in all of the surrounding countries.
|
On October 15 2023 07:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2023 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 03:44 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option. I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas. Since I’ve been the one answering questions rather than asking them, let me first make sure I understand your perspective: are you saying there is a zero violence solution right now? Is there a way for Israel to have confidence Hamas will not try to kill Israelis? So far, I have only seen people suggest things that they agree are deeply unlikely if not impossible as a solution. Is there a solution that you think is likely to occur which does not involve violence on either side? I want to make sure I am understanding your perspective before I respond because I don’t want to respond to the wrong ideas. Just so I understand, if Israel did genocide/ethnic cleanse the Palestinians as it appears they are trying, are you saying the world shouldn't make them a pariah either before to try to prevent it or after to demonstrate it wasn't acceptable? Or just that the West wont because the genocide/ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is acceptable to them If both parties involved agree to try to kill each other, the evil, tragic nature of war means it won't end without military pressure ending it. Whether external or internal through one side being wiped out or surrendering. When I tried to read through the history of this conflict, I concluded it is misguided to contextualize it only within the last 100 years and that even though this and that faction changed their name here and there, there is a thread through history that actually frames this as a single, persistent war, that is motivated by conflicting religious ideologies. I am contextualizing this conflict within it being 2 willing participants who have almost won and almost lost many times throughout history. But its never been conclusively ended because the side that was almost wiped out never decided to stop fighting. It will only end when 1 side decides to stop fighting rather than wait to be strong again to try to win again later. I think people are being dishonest when they frame the war as something that has a diplomatic solution. The only solution is 1 side dying or 1 side surrendering. I think it is essentially muddying the water when people insist there are peaceful solutions because we have numerous examples of both factions being deeply unethical when they have the advantage. I think the world is behaving unethically by not imposing military restrictions on the conflict. I think the world has failed both Israeli and Palestinian civilians by not executing political and military parties within each faction advocating for violence. I think the proper, actual solution to this conflict is for both factions to be entirely neutered from their military grudge match. I view it as depraved indifference. The world just kinda lets all this happen. Both sides of the conflict have a vile, deeply unethical conquest-driven agenda, and that agenda is not being stomped out. It needs to be in order to avoid violence. And since I am dismissing the possibility that the world, including the US, will behave ethically by demilitarizing both parties, I am saying the only 2 options left are surrender and extermination. Hamas won't surrender. Israel won't surrender. So that leaves 1 option. Its not ethical, but it feels like anything else can't be effectively argued as reasonable or likely. What is the list of things that would need to change for the US to behave ethically by demilitarizing both factions? Look down that list, scratch your chin a bit, and tell me what your ballpark estimate of when that will happen is. What is the likelihood? There's no disagreement between you and I on the ethics of how the US treats the conflict. Its just that rather than try to imagine ways I could eat the sun, I am choosing to focus on pizza instead. Not saying its right or ethical. Saying its obvious. According to this Palestine source (https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/129983) there are ~14m Palestinians, of which 5.3m in Historical Palestine (current-day Israel and Palestine). So what you're saying is that the lesser evil is killing at least 5.3m people and probably (a lot) more?
How is that the less evil than accepting the previous status quo, even if that inludes an awful attack like the one Israel is currently still reeling from? And that is assuming there is absolutely no possible way of actually improving the situation at all ever, which you have apparently given up on entirely?Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 03:44 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option. I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas. Since I’ve been the one answering questions rather than asking them, let me first make sure I understand your perspective: are you saying there is a zero violence solution right now? Is there a way for Israel to have confidence Hamas will not try to kill Israelis? So far, I have only seen people suggest things that they agree are deeply unlikely if not impossible as a solution. Is there a solution that you think is likely to occur which does not involve violence on either side? I want to make sure I am understanding your perspective before I respond because I don’t want to respond to the wrong ideas. I don't think there is a zero-violence solution. I think that the current path Israel is on is (1) not going to achieve its goal of whiping out anti-Israeli radicalism among Palestineans, even if it achieves the stated goal of wiping out Hamas, and even that is doubtful. And (2) is going to lead to many many many more innocent deaths. That is, unless they go full scorched earth genocide and kill about the same number of innocent Arabs as the Nazis killed jews in the holocaust. And it's still doubtful their goal would be achieved, because while Palestinians aren't super popular, if they start to get rounded up and sent to gas chambers, Israel's neighbours (and Iran) will definitely not stand idly by. So, zero-violence is a pipe dream, and genocide is not a solution, so what actually could be done? Well, it isn't going to be easy, and it isn't going to be fast. And it will require commitment to achieving a stable solution from a majority as well as state actors. No doubt, both sides will have to deal with attacks and aggression for most of the process, and there will be a part of both sides calling loudly about how this is a sell-out. But essentially, Israel will need to rethink their entire approach to dealing with Palestina, and the world will need to rethink their investment in the region in order to achieve stability (peace is probably a generation or two away even if you achieve some stability). I already wrote what I think such stability might look like, and agree with you that it involves demilitarizing Israel (and preventing Palestina from militarizing). It also involves figuring out an equitable division of land. Here is a pretty decent map that highlights the problem from a geographical point of view: ![[image loading]](https://fanack.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/state-borders_israel_state_400px_02_2398b22cbf.jpg) I think it's fair to say that Galilee is firmly and irrevocably Israel, but Gaza cannot be left as it is, as it is an unlivable stretch of desert with far too many people on it. A larger stretch of the Negev desert will need to be restored to Palestine than the 1967 borders, considering the vast population growth: the Palestinian population (not only Gaza) has grown from slightly over a million in 1967 to over 5m today. Israel has grown similarly (at only a slightly slower rate), meaning overall the problem now includes severe overpopulation of what is, essentially, inhospitable desert land. So how do we get from where we are to where people are able and willing to sit down and actually try to achieve a solution? Well, obviously not by flattening Gaza, and equally obviously not by repeatedly massacring kibutzes. So as long as both sides still seem committed to doing that, I say the best solution is to condemn both sides escalating violence, and hope that when it does eventually die down, whoever step up to lead Israel and Palestina, are serious about giving peace a try.
It's simple really. Brown lives carry less value.
If the roles were reversed, if we were told that an Arab Settler Colonial Project had caged 2.3 million Jews in an open-air prison, bombed them, encroached further on their land, set up gates and checkpoints, prevent them from leaving the land, cut off access to water and electricity, there wouldn't be any question of what we would do. There wouldn't be any question of how complex the issue is. There wouldn't be anyone suggesting "both sides are evil". I understand that Freedom Fighters historically have been labelled terrorists prior to tide turning (Nelson Mandela being the most famous example) but you'd think people would start to connect global trends.
Not only this, but our staunch support of Israel is such that is negatively affects our rights as well. In 35 US states, participating in BDS is illegal, recently France and Germany banned Pro-Palestine protests. Where's our freedoms of speech and expression?
It's entirely laughable.
|
Arguing that jews have been favoured through history or even today above other people is a weird stance to take.
The leftist worldview where everything is viewed through a lens of skin colour and every problem can be traced back to colonialism is truly amazing. I know I've been there myself 20 years ago.
I don't think the skin colour in Gaza would matter even the sligthest bit if everything else was unchanged.
Actually if the arab side had decided to stop selling land instead of the arab riots in 1936 it's not unlikely we would be reading about the jewish riots of 1938-40 instead. Take that that through it's logical course in history and we could well be looking at a complete role reversal and it's unlikely the rest of the world would react differently.
|
On October 15 2023 15:28 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 07:50 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2023 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 03:44 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option. I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas. Since I’ve been the one answering questions rather than asking them, let me first make sure I understand your perspective: are you saying there is a zero violence solution right now? Is there a way for Israel to have confidence Hamas will not try to kill Israelis? So far, I have only seen people suggest things that they agree are deeply unlikely if not impossible as a solution. Is there a solution that you think is likely to occur which does not involve violence on either side? I want to make sure I am understanding your perspective before I respond because I don’t want to respond to the wrong ideas. Just so I understand, if Israel did genocide/ethnic cleanse the Palestinians as it appears they are trying, are you saying the world shouldn't make them a pariah either before to try to prevent it or after to demonstrate it wasn't acceptable? Or just that the West wont because the genocide/ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is acceptable to them If both parties involved agree to try to kill each other, the evil, tragic nature of war means it won't end without military pressure ending it. Whether external or internal through one side being wiped out or surrendering. When I tried to read through the history of this conflict, I concluded it is misguided to contextualize it only within the last 100 years and that even though this and that faction changed their name here and there, there is a thread through history that actually frames this as a single, persistent war, that is motivated by conflicting religious ideologies. I am contextualizing this conflict within it being 2 willing participants who have almost won and almost lost many times throughout history. But its never been conclusively ended because the side that was almost wiped out never decided to stop fighting. It will only end when 1 side decides to stop fighting rather than wait to be strong again to try to win again later. I think people are being dishonest when they frame the war as something that has a diplomatic solution. The only solution is 1 side dying or 1 side surrendering. I think it is essentially muddying the water when people insist there are peaceful solutions because we have numerous examples of both factions being deeply unethical when they have the advantage. I think the world is behaving unethically by not imposing military restrictions on the conflict. I think the world has failed both Israeli and Palestinian civilians by not executing political and military parties within each faction advocating for violence. I think the proper, actual solution to this conflict is for both factions to be entirely neutered from their military grudge match. I view it as depraved indifference. The world just kinda lets all this happen. Both sides of the conflict have a vile, deeply unethical conquest-driven agenda, and that agenda is not being stomped out. It needs to be in order to avoid violence. And since I am dismissing the possibility that the world, including the US, will behave ethically by demilitarizing both parties, I am saying the only 2 options left are surrender and extermination. Hamas won't surrender. Israel won't surrender. So that leaves 1 option. Its not ethical, but it feels like anything else can't be effectively argued as reasonable or likely. What is the list of things that would need to change for the US to behave ethically by demilitarizing both factions? Look down that list, scratch your chin a bit, and tell me what your ballpark estimate of when that will happen is. What is the likelihood? There's no disagreement between you and I on the ethics of how the US treats the conflict. Its just that rather than try to imagine ways I could eat the sun, I am choosing to focus on pizza instead. Not saying its right or ethical. Saying its obvious. According to this Palestine source (https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/129983) there are ~14m Palestinians, of which 5.3m in Historical Palestine (current-day Israel and Palestine). So what you're saying is that the lesser evil is killing at least 5.3m people and probably (a lot) more?
How is that the less evil than accepting the previous status quo, even if that inludes an awful attack like the one Israel is currently still reeling from? And that is assuming there is absolutely no possible way of actually improving the situation at all ever, which you have apparently given up on entirely?On October 15 2023 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 03:44 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option. I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas. Since I’ve been the one answering questions rather than asking them, let me first make sure I understand your perspective: are you saying there is a zero violence solution right now? Is there a way for Israel to have confidence Hamas will not try to kill Israelis? So far, I have only seen people suggest things that they agree are deeply unlikely if not impossible as a solution. Is there a solution that you think is likely to occur which does not involve violence on either side? I want to make sure I am understanding your perspective before I respond because I don’t want to respond to the wrong ideas. I don't think there is a zero-violence solution. I think that the current path Israel is on is (1) not going to achieve its goal of whiping out anti-Israeli radicalism among Palestineans, even if it achieves the stated goal of wiping out Hamas, and even that is doubtful. And (2) is going to lead to many many many more innocent deaths. That is, unless they go full scorched earth genocide and kill about the same number of innocent Arabs as the Nazis killed jews in the holocaust. And it's still doubtful their goal would be achieved, because while Palestinians aren't super popular, if they start to get rounded up and sent to gas chambers, Israel's neighbours (and Iran) will definitely not stand idly by. So, zero-violence is a pipe dream, and genocide is not a solution, so what actually could be done? Well, it isn't going to be easy, and it isn't going to be fast. And it will require commitment to achieving a stable solution from a majority as well as state actors. No doubt, both sides will have to deal with attacks and aggression for most of the process, and there will be a part of both sides calling loudly about how this is a sell-out. But essentially, Israel will need to rethink their entire approach to dealing with Palestina, and the world will need to rethink their investment in the region in order to achieve stability (peace is probably a generation or two away even if you achieve some stability). I already wrote what I think such stability might look like, and agree with you that it involves demilitarizing Israel (and preventing Palestina from militarizing). It also involves figuring out an equitable division of land. Here is a pretty decent map that highlights the problem from a geographical point of view: I think it's fair to say that Galilee is firmly and irrevocably Israel, but Gaza cannot be left as it is, as it is an unlivable stretch of desert with far too many people on it. A larger stretch of the Negev desert will need to be restored to Palestine than the 1967 borders, considering the vast population growth: the Palestinian population (not only Gaza) has grown from slightly over a million in 1967 to over 5m today. Israel has grown similarly (at only a slightly slower rate), meaning overall the problem now includes severe overpopulation of what is, essentially, inhospitable desert land. So how do we get from where we are to where people are able and willing to sit down and actually try to achieve a solution? Well, obviously not by flattening Gaza, and equally obviously not by repeatedly massacring kibutzes. So as long as both sides still seem committed to doing that, I say the best solution is to condemn both sides escalating violence, and hope that when it does eventually die down, whoever step up to lead Israel and Palestina, are serious about giving peace a try. Not only this, but our staunch support of Israel is such that is negatively affects our rights as well. In 35 US states, participating in BDS is illegal, recently France and Germany banned Pro-Palestine protests. Where's our freedoms of speech and expression?
Small nitpick since I have seen this mistake a lot. Germany has not banned pro-palestine protests. In germany you have to get a permit for organised protests like this, and there are many organised and permitted pro-palestine/pro-israel protests happening in germany right now. The new about germany banning a pro-palestine protest as far as I am aware is about a single one that was planned to take place in frankfurt, the same day a pro-isarel demonstration was to take place. This also did not happen on a political whim, but was justified with a history of riots occurring during these events, and not wanting to take any chances with the pro-israel protest taking place at the same time. The ruling also went through different german courts, so denying the pro-palestine protest its permit was not an easy decision.
I assume the reason why this got some international traction is because the final decision that it won't be allowed to take place only came an hour before the protest was to be scheduled, so people had already been gathered and had to be dispersed by the police, with a few cases of people resisting. There was an application for another pro-palestine protest today and got shot down as well. I believe it was handed in on the day the above mentioned protest got ultimately denied, and while I could not find the reasoning for it, I presume its because of concerns that frustration over yesterdays cancelled protest could lead to trouble.
On this weekend, pro-palestine protests are happening / scheduled to happen in other cities, like cologne, duisburg and düsseldorf[german source, sorry].
So in short, germany did not ban pro-palestine protests. It denied the permit/retroactively took away the permit of individual protests over concerns for public safety / civil peace.
|
On October 15 2023 15:08 Salazarz wrote:The notion that this conflict cannot be resolved without complete extermination of one of the sides or similarly unrealistic complete demilitarization of both sides is laughable. People aren't werewolves, and radical extremism in Gaza doesn't happen because of 'cultural incompatibilities' or 'religious conflict', it happens because of an ever-growing list of slights committed against the people living there, both real and made up, and because people living there have pretty much nothing to lose. You don't have to go far for proof of this -- even the similarly mistreated West Bank is far more peaceful and less prone to radicalization than the Gaza strip is. If Israel truly and genuinely wished for violence to end, they'd start investing into building a way for Palestinians to live in a way that makes violent suicide attacks a less attractive option, and give them a way of life that actually makes life worth living. Unfortunately, violent attacks from Hamas are useful to keep attention away from their continued settlement expansion and general lack of any desire whatsoever to solve the territorial disputes with Palestine, so they're quite okay with the status quo, even if the said status quo involves Israelis dying now and then. Show nested quote + Ask Ukraine how much value is contributed by promises and prayers. Or ask a million other groups throughout history. Since you are bringing history up, how many examples are there in history where violence and oppression has ever solved conflicts such as this? Going back as far as recorded history goes, vast majority of rulers and conquerors understood the necessity of allowing minorities / rebellious groups to live in peace and relative prosperity, to enjoy reasonable rights and have something to lose if they were to rebel. Ancient Persians understood this, the Romans understood this, the Arab Sheikhs and Caliphs understood this, even the fucking Mongols understood this -- but somehow today bombing millions of people into submission is presented as viable method of pacifying terrorists and 'self defense'? That's just ridiculous.
How do you envision economic development in Gaza with Hamas as the ruling party? I agree with your point that economic development and perspective of a better life is necessary for Palestinians but I don't see any way that happens in Gaza without destroying most of the operational capabilities of Hamas. The West Bank is more realistic.
|
Honestly, I highly doubt it. Sure, the far right wackos still bring up the Jewish world conspiracy and then start to puke when they realize on which side they now are, because their boogeyman is "the jews" but the only real topic with that they actually score points with moderate rights is anti Muslim hatred. I have never in my life consciously met a Jewish person in Germany. Anti semitism by the west is such a relic of two generations past, whenever it shows up you know that person is directly in Neonazi spheres. Being anti Muslim however is totally okay with huge parts of our societies, probably because of this conflict. We picked a side early on, it was the side of survivors of absolute horror, and from there on Israel became part of the west and with that closer to us in empathy then Syria or Iraq. Or is anyone arguing that collectively we value Israeli lives less then Syrian ones?
And at the same time Arab and or Muslim society radicalized because the continuous struggle of their brethren, even though they only extent that family tie when it suits them, is under constant suppression by the west.
Had the roles been reversed, we would have bombed the Arabs into Gaza ourselves after the settlers had lost.
|
On October 15 2023 17:17 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 15:08 Salazarz wrote:The notion that this conflict cannot be resolved without complete extermination of one of the sides or similarly unrealistic complete demilitarization of both sides is laughable. People aren't werewolves, and radical extremism in Gaza doesn't happen because of 'cultural incompatibilities' or 'religious conflict', it happens because of an ever-growing list of slights committed against the people living there, both real and made up, and because people living there have pretty much nothing to lose. You don't have to go far for proof of this -- even the similarly mistreated West Bank is far more peaceful and less prone to radicalization than the Gaza strip is. If Israel truly and genuinely wished for violence to end, they'd start investing into building a way for Palestinians to live in a way that makes violent suicide attacks a less attractive option, and give them a way of life that actually makes life worth living. Unfortunately, violent attacks from Hamas are useful to keep attention away from their continued settlement expansion and general lack of any desire whatsoever to solve the territorial disputes with Palestine, so they're quite okay with the status quo, even if the said status quo involves Israelis dying now and then. Ask Ukraine how much value is contributed by promises and prayers. Or ask a million other groups throughout history. Since you are bringing history up, how many examples are there in history where violence and oppression has ever solved conflicts such as this? Going back as far as recorded history goes, vast majority of rulers and conquerors understood the necessity of allowing minorities / rebellious groups to live in peace and relative prosperity, to enjoy reasonable rights and have something to lose if they were to rebel. Ancient Persians understood this, the Romans understood this, the Arab Sheikhs and Caliphs understood this, even the fucking Mongols understood this -- but somehow today bombing millions of people into submission is presented as viable method of pacifying terrorists and 'self defense'? That's just ridiculous. How do you envision economic development in Gaza with Hamas as the ruling party? I agree with your point that economic development and perspective of a better life is necessary for Palestinians but I don't see any way that happens in Gaza without destroying most of the operational capabilities of Hamas. The West Bank is more realistic.
Well I mean first of all, we're like nearly 100 years into the conflict so obviously trying to 'fix things' now is fucking hard given how thoroughly fucked things have been over the past decades. I'm also far from an expert on the region so I don't know whether any of my own ideas on this are at all realistic or viable, but the way I see it they could have some kind of schools (actual schools for kids, or professional schools like for trades or w/e for adults as well) near the border, maybe something like the Kaesong factory complex in Korea where they have Palestinians work for Israeli business or whatever. Even if Hamas was messing with projects like this, it would at least have the chance to turn some Palestinians against them and align them more towards cooperation/coexistence with Israel which over time would have a much better chance of actually 'defeating' Hamas than any number of bombs you drop on them.
|
On October 15 2023 17:21 Broetchenholer wrote:
Honestly, I highly doubt it. Sure, the far right wackos still bring up the Jewish world conspiracy and then start to puke when they realize on which side they now are, because their boogeyman is "the jews" but the only real topic with that they actually score points with moderate rights is anti Muslim hatred. I have never in my life consciously met a Jewish person in Germany. Anti semitism by the west is such a relic of two generations past, whenever it shows up you know that person is directly in Neonazi spheres. Being anti Muslim however is totally okay with huge parts of our societies, probably because of this conflict. We picked a side early on, it was the side of survivors of absolute horror, and from there on Israel became part of the west and with that closer to us in empathy then Syria or Iraq. Or is anyone arguing that collectively we value Israeli lives less then Syrian ones?
And at the same time Arab and or Muslim society radicalized because the continuous struggle of their brethren, even though they only extent that family tie when it suits them, is under constant suppression by the west.
Had the roles been reversed, we would have bombed the Arabs into Gaza ourselves after the settlers had lost.
Could also considering the following things to have some influence:
- centuries of struggles between arab and western powers (<1800s and back).
- many arab countries being in the soviet sphere of influence during the cold war.
- a difference in economic agendas (oil producing countries vs oil consuming countries) and decades of one sided reporting on this.
- the ideological clashes between democratic countries and dictatorships (like when Saudi Arabia killed the journalist).
- immigration (both economic and from refuges) with generally poor integration. Finish "immigrants" were once (not to long ago) considered as "trouble makers" in Sweden. Populations in general have huge issues with immigrants.
Just a few other factors that might affect a complex problem. But sure a side was picked and that's it.
Also how many refuges from Syria are in Europe and how many Israeli refuges are there?
Oh, maybe the situation is not comparable?
I wouldn't say we value Syrian lives less but unless you argue that there should have been more western military intervention (because this time it would have worked out differently...) or something? I'm unsure of the similarities that can show a difference. Just because more people die doesn't mean someone cares less.
|
Netherlands21350 Posts
On October 15 2023 16:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Arguing that jews have been favoured through history or even today above other people is a weird stance to take.
The leftist worldview where everything is viewed through a lens of skin colour and every problem can be traced back to colonialism is truly amazing. I know I've been there myself 20 years ago.
I don't think the skin colour in Gaza would matter even the sligthest bit if everything else was unchanged.
Actually if the arab side had decided to stop selling land instead of the arab riots in 1936 it's not unlikely we would be reading about the jewish riots of 1938-40 instead. Take that that through it's logical course in history and we could well be looking at a complete role reversal and it's unlikely the rest of the world would react differently. Do you legit think that if the situations between Palestinians and Israel were reversed today, the world would stand in solidarity and support of Palestine as they committed genocide on the Israeli masses strapped in Gaza?
I think its an incredibly safe bet that if it were anyone other then a Jewish Israel in this situation these attacks would not go uncondemned.
|
On October 15 2023 15:28 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 07:50 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2023 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 03:44 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option. I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas. Since I’ve been the one answering questions rather than asking them, let me first make sure I understand your perspective: are you saying there is a zero violence solution right now? Is there a way for Israel to have confidence Hamas will not try to kill Israelis? So far, I have only seen people suggest things that they agree are deeply unlikely if not impossible as a solution. Is there a solution that you think is likely to occur which does not involve violence on either side? I want to make sure I am understanding your perspective before I respond because I don’t want to respond to the wrong ideas. Just so I understand, if Israel did genocide/ethnic cleanse the Palestinians as it appears they are trying, are you saying the world shouldn't make them a pariah either before to try to prevent it or after to demonstrate it wasn't acceptable? Or just that the West wont because the genocide/ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is acceptable to them If both parties involved agree to try to kill each other, the evil, tragic nature of war means it won't end without military pressure ending it. Whether external or internal through one side being wiped out or surrendering. When I tried to read through the history of this conflict, I concluded it is misguided to contextualize it only within the last 100 years and that even though this and that faction changed their name here and there, there is a thread through history that actually frames this as a single, persistent war, that is motivated by conflicting religious ideologies. I am contextualizing this conflict within it being 2 willing participants who have almost won and almost lost many times throughout history. But its never been conclusively ended because the side that was almost wiped out never decided to stop fighting. It will only end when 1 side decides to stop fighting rather than wait to be strong again to try to win again later. I think people are being dishonest when they frame the war as something that has a diplomatic solution. The only solution is 1 side dying or 1 side surrendering. I think it is essentially muddying the water when people insist there are peaceful solutions because we have numerous examples of both factions being deeply unethical when they have the advantage. I think the world is behaving unethically by not imposing military restrictions on the conflict. I think the world has failed both Israeli and Palestinian civilians by not executing political and military parties within each faction advocating for violence. I think the proper, actual solution to this conflict is for both factions to be entirely neutered from their military grudge match. I view it as depraved indifference. The world just kinda lets all this happen. Both sides of the conflict have a vile, deeply unethical conquest-driven agenda, and that agenda is not being stomped out. It needs to be in order to avoid violence. And since I am dismissing the possibility that the world, including the US, will behave ethically by demilitarizing both parties, I am saying the only 2 options left are surrender and extermination. Hamas won't surrender. Israel won't surrender. So that leaves 1 option. Its not ethical, but it feels like anything else can't be effectively argued as reasonable or likely. What is the list of things that would need to change for the US to behave ethically by demilitarizing both factions? Look down that list, scratch your chin a bit, and tell me what your ballpark estimate of when that will happen is. What is the likelihood? There's no disagreement between you and I on the ethics of how the US treats the conflict. Its just that rather than try to imagine ways I could eat the sun, I am choosing to focus on pizza instead. Not saying its right or ethical. Saying its obvious. According to this Palestine source (https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/129983) there are ~14m Palestinians, of which 5.3m in Historical Palestine (current-day Israel and Palestine). So what you're saying is that the lesser evil is killing at least 5.3m people and probably (a lot) more?
How is that the less evil than accepting the previous status quo, even if that inludes an awful attack like the one Israel is currently still reeling from? And that is assuming there is absolutely no possible way of actually improving the situation at all ever, which you have apparently given up on entirely?On October 15 2023 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 03:44 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option. I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas. Since I’ve been the one answering questions rather than asking them, let me first make sure I understand your perspective: are you saying there is a zero violence solution right now? Is there a way for Israel to have confidence Hamas will not try to kill Israelis? So far, I have only seen people suggest things that they agree are deeply unlikely if not impossible as a solution. Is there a solution that you think is likely to occur which does not involve violence on either side? I want to make sure I am understanding your perspective before I respond because I don’t want to respond to the wrong ideas. I don't think there is a zero-violence solution. I think that the current path Israel is on is (1) not going to achieve its goal of whiping out anti-Israeli radicalism among Palestineans, even if it achieves the stated goal of wiping out Hamas, and even that is doubtful. And (2) is going to lead to many many many more innocent deaths. That is, unless they go full scorched earth genocide and kill about the same number of innocent Arabs as the Nazis killed jews in the holocaust. And it's still doubtful their goal would be achieved, because while Palestinians aren't super popular, if they start to get rounded up and sent to gas chambers, Israel's neighbours (and Iran) will definitely not stand idly by. So, zero-violence is a pipe dream, and genocide is not a solution, so what actually could be done? Well, it isn't going to be easy, and it isn't going to be fast. And it will require commitment to achieving a stable solution from a majority as well as state actors. No doubt, both sides will have to deal with attacks and aggression for most of the process, and there will be a part of both sides calling loudly about how this is a sell-out. But essentially, Israel will need to rethink their entire approach to dealing with Palestina, and the world will need to rethink their investment in the region in order to achieve stability (peace is probably a generation or two away even if you achieve some stability). I already wrote what I think such stability might look like, and agree with you that it involves demilitarizing Israel (and preventing Palestina from militarizing). It also involves figuring out an equitable division of land. Here is a pretty decent map that highlights the problem from a geographical point of view: I think it's fair to say that Galilee is firmly and irrevocably Israel, but Gaza cannot be left as it is, as it is an unlivable stretch of desert with far too many people on it. A larger stretch of the Negev desert will need to be restored to Palestine than the 1967 borders, considering the vast population growth: the Palestinian population (not only Gaza) has grown from slightly over a million in 1967 to over 5m today. Israel has grown similarly (at only a slightly slower rate), meaning overall the problem now includes severe overpopulation of what is, essentially, inhospitable desert land. So how do we get from where we are to where people are able and willing to sit down and actually try to achieve a solution? Well, obviously not by flattening Gaza, and equally obviously not by repeatedly massacring kibutzes. So as long as both sides still seem committed to doing that, I say the best solution is to condemn both sides escalating violence, and hope that when it does eventually die down, whoever step up to lead Israel and Palestina, are serious about giving peace a try. It's simple really. Brown lives carry less value. If the roles were reversed, if we were told that an Arab Settler Colonial Project had caged 2.3 million Jews in an open-air prison, bombed them, encroached further on their land, set up gates and checkpoints, prevent them from leaving the land, cut off access to water and electricity, there wouldn't be any question of what we would do. There wouldn't be any question of how complex the issue is. There wouldn't be anyone suggesting "both sides are evil". I understand that Freedom Fighters historically have been labelled terrorists prior to tide turning (Nelson Mandela being the most famous example) but you'd think people would start to connect global trends. Not only this, but our staunch support of Israel is such that is negatively affects our rights as well. In 35 US states, participating in BDS is illegal, recently France and Germany banned Pro-Palestine protests. Where's our freedoms of speech and expression? It's entirely laughable.
Freedom of speech is curtailed by incitement of hatred here.
This a decision made by our executive (administration, police), which has historically often turned a blind eye to the death to Israel chants but thanks to recent events this would look bad if it were allowed.
These antisemitic protest / marches happen regularly. Our authorities judged that there is a very high probability of these protest turning violent or into a direction not covered by our freedom of speech. Hence they denied the permit to hold it.
But if there is an unlawful demonstration, these people dont get shot or beaten to death or land in jail for 100 years.
|
On October 15 2023 18:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 16:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Arguing that jews have been favoured through history or even today above other people is a weird stance to take.
The leftist worldview where everything is viewed through a lens of skin colour and every problem can be traced back to colonialism is truly amazing. I know I've been there myself 20 years ago.
I don't think the skin colour in Gaza would matter even the sligthest bit if everything else was unchanged.
Actually if the arab side had decided to stop selling land instead of the arab riots in 1936 it's not unlikely we would be reading about the jewish riots of 1938-40 instead. Take that that through it's logical course in history and we could well be looking at a complete role reversal and it's unlikely the rest of the world would react differently. Do you legit think that if the situations between Palestinians and Israel were reversed today, the world would stand in solidarity and support of Palestine as they committed genocide on the Israeli masses strapped in Gaza? I think its an incredibly safe bet that if it were anyone other then a Jewish Israel in this situation these attacks would not go uncondemned.
Yes, 100 % the situation would be the same. The world didn't do much in the 1930's leading up to the holocaust. The world hasn't done anything positive in the past when jews were being persecuted before that either.
During the arab revolt the relationship between the Palestinians and the British were soured. British forces also started cooperating with Israeli self defence groups (who among other things tried to hunt down Israeli terrorists).
Despite all this Britain agreed to limit jewish immigration because of geopolitical reasons and put jewish refuges into camps.
Even if the arab revolt was mainly between the British mandate and palestinians the violence between jews and arabs also started the thinking that maybe there had to be a partition plan.
If the response had instead been to say "were not going to sell any more land but they can come and stay on the land they already have" then things would be very different. I don't see any way that the zionist movement wouldn't have acted out in violent ways in that situation. Britain would have a jewish problem in the lead-up to WWII instead of an arab one. Ties would be formed with arab self defence groups instead. British and international views on who were to blame for the problems would be very different. Immigration would likely be restricted regardless but it would be Britains choice. It's likely that proposed partion plans would favour the palestinian side more. But it would only matter if the jewish community had managed to suppress their zionist subgroups effectively. Otherwise there would still be a civil war but the arab position would be significantly stronger than in 1947 and it's not unlikely that the other arab nations would join in earlier and it's unlikely GB would stop them.
End result probably fencing in any jews that wouldn't leave in the 5 % of the land the owned and forming a Palestinian state.
|
If the roles were reversed things would be way different for sure, but the thing that is perhaps the most important is that if the roles were reversed and somehow everything else happened in the same way I have zero doubt that all of the people posting propalestinian content in this thread would be on the side of the israeli Jews getting ethnically cleansed and dehumanized. It's a bit weird that you, among perhaps others, would switch.
|
On October 15 2023 18:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 16:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Arguing that jews have been favoured through history or even today above other people is a weird stance to take.
The leftist worldview where everything is viewed through a lens of skin colour and every problem can be traced back to colonialism is truly amazing. I know I've been there myself 20 years ago.
I don't think the skin colour in Gaza would matter even the sligthest bit if everything else was unchanged.
Actually if the arab side had decided to stop selling land instead of the arab riots in 1936 it's not unlikely we would be reading about the jewish riots of 1938-40 instead. Take that that through it's logical course in history and we could well be looking at a complete role reversal and it's unlikely the rest of the world would react differently. Do you legit think that if the situations between Palestinians and Israel were reversed today, the world would stand in solidarity and support of Palestine as they committed genocide on the Israeli masses strapped in Gaza? I think its an incredibly safe bet that if it were anyone other then a Jewish Israel in this situation these attacks would not go uncondemned.
If the State of Israel was instead a State of Islam, and Hamas was Jewish instead of Muslim, i.e. everything with the roles of Jews and Muslims perfectly reversed, that would not excuse the actions of terrorist groups. It would lead to both historic and geopolitical questions though. First of all, from which nations exactly would Jewish Hamas be receiving funding?
When you think about the problem in this way, you'll understand that (back to real life) Hamas is not an autonomous terrorist group. They're funded by terrorist states, their religion is the overwhelming majority in the ME, and the places from which they receive funding have had and still have their own anti-Jewish persecution and cleansing going on.
For this reason the script can't be easily flipped in a way to arrive at "it's racism". I don't believe it has much to do with racism. Western right-wingers sure are racist about it, but the people involved in the conflict? I strongly doubt it. Racism may mix into it, but the core is religion, statehood, and historic injustices on several sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
