|
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. |
On September 09 2025 14:42 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2025 16:13 Magic Powers wrote:My impression (that I already got several times when talking to you) is that you try to counter-argue, look for articles that support your POV and then - without much thought or reflection - post them as a basis against a singular topic, while missing out on the bigger picture. I've read this article - in full, several times - before you started posting here again. That's why I had it ready to deliver, because it fit the matter perfectly. So please, quite frankly, shove your "impressions" elsewhere. You're not Columbo or whatever you think you are. Keep the discussion around facts, not personal attacks. Otherwise I'll have to resort to reporting your posts to keep things fact based. How else could you write such preposterous nonsense as there being thousands of starvation deaths pre-2023? Stop with this nonsense right now. I already said that this may've been a misinterpretation on my part. It regards only one part of the article and is irrelevant to the larger argument of post-Oct 7 starvation. If you're unwilling to consider that people make mistakes and to acknowledge that as part of an unfolding discussion, then you will never hear another formulated response from me ever again. I'll simply resort to 1) ignoring you and 2) one-lining you in the style of Kwark. If you want to create a deterioration of discourse like that, go ahead. I hope you'll feel great about yourself. Otherwise, if you want a normal discussion, then drop this nonsense and continue the discussion like a mature adult would. And just to highlight one thing, that I didn't even want to discuss: Are you aware how the current classification came to pass? Do you even read the other side? The article I posted is not from the IPC, in fact it is itself not relying on the IPC but rather on a number of other sources such as this one, which concludes: Conclusions
Israel, as occupying power, did not ensure sufficient food availability throughout the analysis period, and its data appear unreliable. Existing stocks probably mitigated caloric deficits resulting from insufficient deliveries, but air and sea routes added little. Strengthened coordination of food deliveries may be warranted to optimise caloric quantity and dietary diversity despite aid restrictions. https://gaza-projections.org/docs/report3/wartime_food_availability_in_the_gaza_strip.pdfFrom the WPF article: A group of Israeli physicians used estimates for food deliveries to challenge the IPC findings in 2024.[18] This was challenged on analytical, empirical and methodological grounds and cannot be considered credible.[19] Better figures for food availability have been calculated.[20] The criticism of the IPC findings is considered "not credible". Explain that, please. How can it at the same time not be credible and yet also useful? Why are you relying on a source/methodology that isn't strictly considered credible and useful? Why should it be considered credible and useful? govextra works for the Israeli government. This is the source you consider credible? Many consider it a source of propaganda. Their use of language confirms that allegation. Ok, then you read and misinterpreted it several times. Fair enough, that can happen. My issue is not you misinterpreting something wrong. My issue is that you misinterpret an article and have no feel of discomfort about the misinterpretation. You have been posting here for months, maybe years and you simply should know that a couple of thousands yearly starvation deaths pre-2023 is absolutely nuts. There should be enough surrounding knowledge that should trigger you to double-check if that number could actually be accurate. It would be the same, if a pro-Israel user would read an article saying that the actual total death count is 10k and post that information here. That is the scope of how wrong your statement was. And if mods here actually police a personal opinion when straight up insults, unfounded accusations or litter posts are fine would be interesting to see. To be honest, I am still not quite sure, how you managed to get temp banned some time ago, given how nearly anything flies here. But sure, let's keep it fact based and if you wish, you can call me Columbo. So as you - out of the several topics I raised - chose to engage in me criticizing health organizations' assessments form December 2023 and I haven't seen any real points invalidating my opinion, where do we stand here? Again, my point is: - It was said that over 300k children are at high risk of preventable death - It was said that there needs to be something happening now (not in 1 months, not in 6 months, not in nearly 2 years... now) - It was said that an immediate and long-lasting humanitarian ceasefire is what is needed I challenge this assessment as, - this long-lasting ceasefire did not occur and the situation, as a matter of fact, even worsened at times - a ceasefire was only established in January 2025, meaning over a year has passed between the call for it and the enactment - there was no immediate ceasefire and the situation, especially in northern Gaza worsened dramatically and we don't even have 500 confirmed starvation deaths (and yes, I will say it again: even one would be too many, so all of you reading this: safe your cynicism... it is a fucking war and bad things happen). So I only bring this up to reality check humanitarian organizations or journals like the Lancet that are known for making insane overestimations in this conflict. It is a simple comparison between an assessment and reality. And if you think that 330k and 500 are in any way shape or form relatable when the situation has worsened and nothing was done for 1 year, when immediate action was pushed for, then we won't agree here. And I wouldn't even understand why it should be hard for anyone to agree on this observation. It wouldn't invalidate the 500 too many starvation deaths. Or the potentially even higher unofficial/unconfirmed number. Israel's collective punishment would still be a warcrime and utterly wrong... so why are we even arguing about this? I don't understand... Show nested quote +On September 08 2025 22:05 Jankisa wrote:
Sometimes I just ask myself what kind of a person spends their time providing hardcore defense of starvation as a tactic, which has been admitted by Israel officials on the basis that "there is not enough starvation to call it famine".
Like, what has to happen in your life that this is what you spend your time on.
I get it for ghouls like AIPAC or Free Press who's sole propose of existence is to defend Israel's actions no matter how fucked up they are, but someone on an internet forum emailing genocide scholars or spending inordinate amounts of time arguing over wording of articles and comments when it's obvious to anyone with eyes that there are people dying form lack of food and given that there is an abundance of food waiting to enter Gaza which Israel is preventing that is absolutely fucking unacceptable.
What has to happen in ones life to make them this heartless. Ultra-strawman. Because I never defended starvation as a tactic. I called it a warcrime, called out Israel for it several times and wrote that Israel itself and singular officials and soldiers complicit in this warcrime and others should be held accountable. This has nothing to do with being heartless, but with misinterpretations. This isn't even about any kind of defense for Israel but about preposterously wrong statements regarding this conflict being called out for what they are. Seriously, this is exactly what I called out in my rant on the previous page. This is why no one critical of what is spread here is posting regularly... you guys simply are not able to distinguish between facts and emotion and make emotional appeals instead of addressing what is actually written.
I'll respond to this part first:
I challenge this assessment as,
- this long-lasting ceasefire did not occur and the situation, as a matter of fact, even worsened at times
- a ceasefire was only established in January 2025, meaning over a year has passed between the call for it and the enactment
- there was no immediate ceasefire and the situation, especially in northern Gaza worsened dramatically and we don't even have 500 confirmed starvation deaths (and yes, I will say it again: even one would be too many, so all of you reading this: safe your cynicism... it is a fucking war and bad things happen).
The food situation worsened over time, not instantly. It's explained that there are valid reasons for why the famine wasn't called sooner, such as existing food supply (prior to the conflict I assume?).
However, what people need to understand is that confirmed casualties are not true casualties, and likewise confirmed deaths from starvation are also not true deaths from starvation. The true numbers are, without a doubt, much higher. Under-reporting is expected, which is why likewise nobody knows how many people have really died as a consequence of the war. The estimates range from around 60-70k all the way up to 200k. Some people would argue it could be even more than that. Deaths from starvation must be treated similarly. When a few hundred are being reported, we can safely assume it's closer to a thousand or in an extreme case could be even several thousand. And these estimates are real and credible, they're not made up or anything. They're based on valid research. And it's not just one research group coming up with such estimates, it's a whole host of them. They always put the real estimates much higher than the reported cases. This is not bias, this is professional experience.
So why wasn't famine called in 2024? Nobody really knows, and it doesn't really matter. What we do know is that Gaza was on the brink of famine for a very long time. This is not an exaggeration at all. Very few experts said that so many thousands of people in Gaza would immediately start dying as a consequence, instead they described it as a serious risk. Most importantly, their goal wasn't to let people die and then prove that they were right, their goal was to save people and then hopefully never get proven right. And this is what I need you to understand. When famine doesn't get declared, that's a win for us. We are celebrating when famine doesn't happen. We're not eagerly sitting here hoping for a famine just so we can say "see, we were right".
And that is also why I'm now so pissed that famine has finally been declared. This is the nightmare scenario that people have warned us of for so many months. It's real now, which means the risk was real, it means the predictions were right. They just warned us long ahead of the disaster rather than shortly before it would happen - because the goal was to prevent it, not just to warn of it.
I put this next part in the back of my comment, because I want my response to prioritize the discussion and not get into the bickering aspect right away:
You've likewise been "insanely wrong" about things before. Don't think to yourself you're somehow superior to other people. Everyone blunders, including you. Everyone has blind spots. People who believe that they are incapable of making a blunder while reading articles or while discussing things are full of shit. Everyone has the capacity for it. Literally everyone. The 150 IQ person you might be friends with? Yes, even that one. Even they blunder. Don't think too highly of yourself, or too lowly of others. Take this as a general life advice. It will help you view other people and yourself with greater fairness and less hostility. We're all humans, nobody is an angel.
It's not about whether we blunder. It's about our capacity to admit to blundering and moving on and sticking to the core of the argument rather than derailing it.
I almost never see people in this forum admit literally anything ever. There are about two other people besides myself in both this thread and the US thread who I've seen admit fault before. It can't be a lot more than that. Somehow people appear to be incapable of admitting fault. It's absurd that those are also the exact same people who like to accuse me and others of being incapable of admitting fault, while I have in fact admitted fault plenty of times.
This needs to change. People need more self-awareness. This accusatory and antagonistic behavior coupled with a complete lack of self-awareness has gotten out of control.
|
On September 09 2025 14:42 PremoBeats wrote:
Ultra-strawman.
Because I never defended starvation as a tactic. I called it a warcrime, called out Israel for it several times and wrote that Israel itself and singular officials and soldiers complicit in this warcrime and others should be held accountable. This has nothing to do with being heartless, but with misinterpretations.
This isn't even about any kind of defense for Israel but about preposterously wrong statements regarding this conflict being called out for what they are.
Seriously, this is exactly what I called out in my rant on the previous page. This is why no one critical of what is spread here is posting regularly... you guys simply are not able to distinguish between facts and emotion and make emotional appeals instead of addressing what is actually written.
If someone comes to this thread to do 2 things:
1. Claim Israel is not committing genocide
2. Claim that there is no famine in Gaza
And somewhere inside multiple page posts puts a few "if this was happening it's to be condemned" that doesn't make what they are doing any less of a shitty thing to do.
You, to me, are one of the "well, the number of dead Jews in the Holocaust is not 6 million" guys who will also throw in "of course I don't agree that people should be exterminated", but you still spend most of your time leaving long posts about how Holocaust was exaggerated.
You can claim until you are blue in the face that you aren't a Holocaust denier, but you are doing all the things that a Holocaust denier does, so, you are one.
In this thread, you are spending, comparatively, almost no time (and I don't have the patience of MP to read everything what you write because, again, I don't care about nitpicking and definitions when it comes to human suffering) empathizing with the victims and putting blame on the aggressors, instead of you are spending most of your time trying to minimize the blame of Israel.
Also, this is a thread where anyone can post whatever they want, as long as it's on topic, my comments or other peoples posts about actual things that are ongoing and escalating are just as valid as your genocide and famine denial, and as long as people engage with either or those they are valid things to post, hell, even if it's shouting into the void it's still valid.
I honestly prefer that guys like KwarK or Billiboy who also reflexively defend Israel don't post here anymore because it makes me lose faith in humanity that people, even smart and otherwise politically aligned people can be so blindsided and defend things that are, to me, indefensible.
|
Israel has just hit Hamas leadership and negotiators in Doha, Qatar. Hamas surely is going to agree to a ceasefire deal now. They just have to form a new negotiation team. However, Qatar may not be the place for continuing negotiations. They can't really claim to be neutral ground or safe for negotiations when they allow one side to strike against another. If Qatar did not agree to the strike, then Israel would have again committed military action in another sovereign country. In which case, Qatar might need to respond to Israel's attack. The world gets weird if countries are allowed to do airstrikes in other nations, however they like, especially when they happen in highly populated cities.
Qatar also has a USA military base that should probably intercept any missiles targeting Qatar. Thus, the USA has most likely approved the strike, which could make things even more awkward if Qatar did not allow the strike.
On a larger scale, this is unlikely to matter that much, but other states in the area probably do not like how much freedom Israel is allowed, while there are talks about normalising relationships. Even though they are mostly monarchies, their leaders are not fully immune to the opinions of the general population or the higher societies of their countries. Having your own country under your thumb loses its prestige if everyone just ignores it.
|
Like I mentioned in the Russia / Ukraine thread, at some point, all these authoritarian nationalistic regimes around the world will get rid of all the enemies within and around and start looking at each other, at that point, we will be truly and utterly fucked.
Right now, Putin is happy to let Israel bomb Iran and say nothing as long as Trump is helping him stall any sort of peace process in Ukraine.
But, at some point, they will clash. I think, in the ME, the first on the menu will be Israel vs Turkey over Syria. Then, it's going to be very interesting how all these ME authoritarian kingdoms who have been cutting out their spheres of influence react and who do they side with.
Unfortunately, Palestinians have no one on their side, absolutely no one, Qatar was happy to pretend to be on their side for a while, trying to be the "neutral kingdom helping facilitate business between all these other authoritarian states" and they thought they can bribe Trump and be safe forever.
They didn't realize that the main point of Trump is that he holds absolutely no loyalties. Nethyanahu might find that out as well, if someone offers him a bigger bribe.
Of course, none of this matters to the people of Gaza, they are getting tripple fucked. Now there's no one from Hamas to negotiate while IDF razes high-rises in Gaza city, not that it mattered before, since Israel was refusing deals that they have accepted in the past.
|
On September 09 2025 23:56 Legan wrote:
On a larger scale, this is unlikely to matter that much[...]
It matters a lot as far as US credibility is concerned.
Either Trump deliberately lured Hamas into a trap, looked the other way when Israel planned the strike or was caught completely unaware.
I wonder, how does he hope to get Iran to trust in any future talks.
|
Looks like Trump cut a deal with Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Allowing 7 Hamas officials to be assassinated in the capital of Qatar seems like the most clear possible sign Saudi Arabia and Qatar have agreed to let Israel kill/displace all Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. Historically, all those Hamas shitbags were entirely safe and there was no way Israel would consider something like this.
Even though Israel's messaging lately has painted a very grim picture of completely wiping out Gaza and West Bank, this feels like a much more significant indicator what is to come. This would not happen if Israel had not been given the thumbs up. If they got the thumbs up for this, Palestinians have officially lost the last, faint glimmer of hope.
|
On September 10 2025 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:
Looks like Trump cut a deal with Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Allowing 7 Hamas officials to be assassinated in the capital of Qatar seems like the most clear possible sign Saudi Arabia and Qatar have agreed to let Israel kill/displace all Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. Historically, all those Hamas shitbags were entirely safe and there was no way Israel would consider something like this.
Even though Israel's messaging lately has painted a very grim picture of completely wiping out Gaza and West Bank, this feels like a much more significant indicator what is to come. This would not happen if Israel had not been given the thumbs up. If they got the thumbs up for this, Palestinians have officially lost the last, faint glimmer of hope.
Why is it grim you said over a year ago that you thought it was the best outcome
|
United States43677 Posts
Worse case scenario the elimination of Hamas still means one fewer party attempting to maximize Palestinian casualties. Best case scenario it brings Israel that much closer to the conclusion of the war based on their stated requirement for peace.
|
On September 10 2025 05:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2025 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:
Looks like Trump cut a deal with Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Allowing 7 Hamas officials to be assassinated in the capital of Qatar seems like the most clear possible sign Saudi Arabia and Qatar have agreed to let Israel kill/displace all Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. Historically, all those Hamas shitbags were entirely safe and there was no way Israel would consider something like this.
Even though Israel's messaging lately has painted a very grim picture of completely wiping out Gaza and West Bank, this feels like a much more significant indicator what is to come. This would not happen if Israel had not been given the thumbs up. If they got the thumbs up for this, Palestinians have officially lost the last, faint glimmer of hope. Why is it grim you said over a year ago that you thought it was the best outcome
Best outcome is relocation. It looks like relocation isn't nearly as on the table as it once was. Qatar and SA allowing this assassination means SA and Qatar have received whatever it is they were after a part of this negotiation since Trump took office.
Nothing is worse than dying. Qatar and SA care a lot more about maintaining sovereignty than they do the sum of all Palestinian lives. If they authorized the strike, they have received what they wanted out of this negotiation and they have released their bargaining chips. This strike would not happen if Palestinian lives were still anyone's concern.
|
Relocation is not the best outcome. To me it's like saying the best outcome in 1938 is deporting Czechs and Poles to Siberia because Germany feels like it's the only way to keep their homies in Danzig and Prague safe. Palestinians keep sabotaging their position over and over but that doesn't anihilate their right to live in their own homeland.
|
On September 10 2025 06:30 Sent. wrote:
Relocation is not the best outcome. To me it's like saying the best outcome in 1938 is deporting Czechs and Poles to Siberia because Germany feels like it's the only way to keep their homies in Danzig and Prague safe. Palestinians keep sabotaging their position over and over but that doesn't anihilate their right to live in their own homeland.
My best outcome today is immortality and to ensure the happiness and health of all living creatures. I am unlikely to achieve that. So when I say ideal outcome, I am more focused on what is even vaguely achievable.
Think about it like this: If Qatar and SA allowed 7 people to be assassinated by Israel in the capital of Qatar, what do you think Israel will be prevented from doing? If Netanyahu wants all Palestinians entirely removed/killed, do you think their right to live in their homeland is on the table?
|
On September 10 2025 06:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2025 06:30 Sent. wrote:
Relocation is not the best outcome. To me it's like saying the best outcome in 1938 is deporting Czechs and Poles to Siberia because Germany feels like it's the only way to keep their homies in Danzig and Prague safe. Palestinians keep sabotaging their position over and over but that doesn't anihilate their right to live in their own homeland. My best outcome today is immortality and to ensure the happiness and health of all living creatures. I am unlikely to achieve that. So when I say ideal outcome, I am more focused on what is even vaguely achievable. Think about it like this: If Qatar and SA allowed 7 people to be assassinated by Israel in the capital of Qatar, what do you think Israel will be prevented from doing? If Netanyahu wants all Palestinians entirely removed/killed, do you think their right to live in their homeland is on the table?
It isn't remotely achievable to do a "relocation" without violence, so when you try and wiggle out of "ethnic cleansing" by saying "relocation" instead, you are not focused on what's achievable at all.
|
On September 10 2025 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2025 06:42 Mohdoo wrote:On September 10 2025 06:30 Sent. wrote:
Relocation is not the best outcome. To me it's like saying the best outcome in 1938 is deporting Czechs and Poles to Siberia because Germany feels like it's the only way to keep their homies in Danzig and Prague safe. Palestinians keep sabotaging their position over and over but that doesn't anihilate their right to live in their own homeland. My best outcome today is immortality and to ensure the happiness and health of all living creatures. I am unlikely to achieve that. So when I say ideal outcome, I am more focused on what is even vaguely achievable. Think about it like this: If Qatar and SA allowed 7 people to be assassinated by Israel in the capital of Qatar, what do you think Israel will be prevented from doing? If Netanyahu wants all Palestinians entirely removed/killed, do you think their right to live in their homeland is on the table? It isn't remotely achievable to do a "relocation" without violence, so when you try and wiggle out of "ethnic cleansing" by saying "relocation" instead, you are not focused on what's achievable at all.
I think violence is *more* likely than relocation, not less likely. I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything. I am saying I think Israel is about to kill as many people as they feel like on their way to Netanyahu's evil plans.
I feel like this is at minimum time number 900 you have framed my posts as defending Israel when I am very clearly describing Israel as having evil intentions and evil goals. I repeatedly point out how Palestinians do a profoundly bad job at mitigating these goals with jihad nonsense, but it doesn't change the fact that Netanyahu is evil. I've repeatedly described Palestinians as the most tragedy-stricken people on the planet.
Anyway, point being: I really hope as many Palestinians are able to escape as possible.
Do you disagree with my assessment based on the 7 assassinations? I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. My whole point is that Qatar and SA were the only groups preventing the Netanyahu plan from being realized and they apparently agreed to let Israel do what they want.
Honestly I'm very curious what Qatar and SA got out of this deal. Its not clear to me what major things they want/need now.
|
On September 10 2025 06:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2025 06:30 Sent. wrote:
Relocation is not the best outcome. To me it's like saying the best outcome in 1938 is deporting Czechs and Poles to Siberia because Germany feels like it's the only way to keep their homies in Danzig and Prague safe. Palestinians keep sabotaging their position over and over but that doesn't anihilate their right to live in their own homeland. My best outcome today is immortality and to ensure the happiness and health of all living creatures. I am unlikely to achieve that. So when I say ideal outcome, I am more focused on what is even vaguely achievable. Think about it like this: If Qatar and SA allowed 7 people to be assassinated by Israel in the capital of Qatar, what do you think Israel will be prevented from doing? If Netanyahu wants all Palestinians entirely removed/killed, do you think their right to live in their homeland is on the table?
Relocation isn't going to happen regardless of what Qatar and SA choose to ignore to please the US. You're getting violence either way and Israel and their American buddies aren't influential enough to make everyone believe their plan is the least destructive.
The best possible outcome is probably something similar to the South African international isolation until Israel agrees to limit their antics to retaliatory carpet bombings in exchange for every firecracker released in their direction from Gaza. What they're doing now is not acceptable.
|
On September 10 2025 06:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2025 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 10 2025 06:42 Mohdoo wrote:On September 10 2025 06:30 Sent. wrote:
Relocation is not the best outcome. To me it's like saying the best outcome in 1938 is deporting Czechs and Poles to Siberia because Germany feels like it's the only way to keep their homies in Danzig and Prague safe. Palestinians keep sabotaging their position over and over but that doesn't anihilate their right to live in their own homeland. My best outcome today is immortality and to ensure the happiness and health of all living creatures. I am unlikely to achieve that. So when I say ideal outcome, I am more focused on what is even vaguely achievable. Think about it like this: If Qatar and SA allowed 7 people to be assassinated by Israel in the capital of Qatar, what do you think Israel will be prevented from doing? If Netanyahu wants all Palestinians entirely removed/killed, do you think their right to live in their homeland is on the table? It isn't remotely achievable to do a "relocation" without violence, so when you try and wiggle out of "ethnic cleansing" by saying "relocation" instead, you are not focused on what's achievable at all. I think violence is *more* likely than relocation, not less likely. I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything. I am saying I think Israel is about to kill as many people as they feel like on their way to Netanyahu's evil plans. I feel like this is at minimum time number 900 you have framed my posts as defending Israel when I am very clearly describing Israel as having evil intentions and evil goals. I repeatedly point out how Palestinians do a profoundly bad job at mitigating these goals with jihad nonsense, but it doesn't change the fact that Netanyahu is evil. I've repeatedly described Palestinians as the most tragedy-stricken people on the planet.
Just saying man, a year ago you were ready to use the word "ethnic cleansing" to describe what you thought was the best achievable outcome, suddenly today it's "relocation" and not ethnic cleansing. Relocation without violence isn't an achievable outcome at all, so your position last year was more logical.
On October 08 2023 23:17 Mohdoo wrote:
I should have said ethnic cleansing. Israel seeks to have Palestinians not live there. Either way; every Palestinian parent trying to keep their kids there is a lunatic that should be prevented from harming their children.
|
Saying that the best-case scenario for Palestinians is relocation really sounds similar to what was told to American Indians so many times. Relocate beyond Mississippi, to a reservation and so on, or you are going to get killed. The fate of your people is inevitable disappearance, either through assimilation into the superior or death. Your fate is rapidly approaching already, so give up hope for anything better.
|
On September 10 2025 07:12 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2025 06:55 Mohdoo wrote:On September 10 2025 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 10 2025 06:42 Mohdoo wrote:On September 10 2025 06:30 Sent. wrote:
Relocation is not the best outcome. To me it's like saying the best outcome in 1938 is deporting Czechs and Poles to Siberia because Germany feels like it's the only way to keep their homies in Danzig and Prague safe. Palestinians keep sabotaging their position over and over but that doesn't anihilate their right to live in their own homeland. My best outcome today is immortality and to ensure the happiness and health of all living creatures. I am unlikely to achieve that. So when I say ideal outcome, I am more focused on what is even vaguely achievable. Think about it like this: If Qatar and SA allowed 7 people to be assassinated by Israel in the capital of Qatar, what do you think Israel will be prevented from doing? If Netanyahu wants all Palestinians entirely removed/killed, do you think their right to live in their homeland is on the table? It isn't remotely achievable to do a "relocation" without violence, so when you try and wiggle out of "ethnic cleansing" by saying "relocation" instead, you are not focused on what's achievable at all. I think violence is *more* likely than relocation, not less likely. I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything. I am saying I think Israel is about to kill as many people as they feel like on their way to Netanyahu's evil plans. I feel like this is at minimum time number 900 you have framed my posts as defending Israel when I am very clearly describing Israel as having evil intentions and evil goals. I repeatedly point out how Palestinians do a profoundly bad job at mitigating these goals with jihad nonsense, but it doesn't change the fact that Netanyahu is evil. I've repeatedly described Palestinians as the most tragedy-stricken people on the planet. Just saying man, a year ago you were ready to use the word "ethnic cleansing" to describe what you thought was the best achievable outcome, suddenly today it's "relocation" and not ethnic cleansing. Relocation without violence isn't an achievable outcome at all, so your position last year was more logical. Show nested quote +On October 08 2023 23:17 Mohdoo wrote:
I should have said ethnic cleansing. Israel seeks to have Palestinians not live there. Either way; every Palestinian parent trying to keep their kids there is a lunatic that should be prevented from harming their children.
I'll be honest, I wasn't putting a ton of effort into the nitty gritty wording. I went into this with a general assumption people get what I mean. But you are right to point out I have been wrong in that assumption more than I have been right. I think the absolute minimum bad that will occur is ethnic cleansing. I do not mean ethnic cleansing isn't bad. Ethnic cleansing is very bad and tragic and evil. And I am saying all this because I am genuinely shocked and chilled realizing how likely it all feels. I just don't see SA/Qatar letting this happen otherwise. This is such a major thing to happen.
Even ignoring everything else, there is literally no one to negotiate with anymore. Its kind of odd seeing how silent media on all sides of this conflict are. I am seeing very little speculation as to what this all means rather than reporting it simply as an episode of conflict. The implications are giant.
|
On September 10 2025 01:53 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2025 23:56 Legan wrote:
On a larger scale, this is unlikely to matter that much[...] It matters a lot as far as US credibility is concerned. Either Trump deliberately lured Hamas into a trap, looked the other way when Israel planned the strike or was caught completely unaware. I wonder, how does he hope to get Iran to trust in any future talks.
I don't think there was any trust between the parties left before this. Why would there be? Without trust, any demands must be frontloaded, as anything that is not immediate should not be expected to happen. Which was already happening. Oh, there is one party that a lot of people will continue to trust, and that is Israel.
|
On September 10 2025 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2025 07:12 Nebuchad wrote:On September 10 2025 06:55 Mohdoo wrote:On September 10 2025 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 10 2025 06:42 Mohdoo wrote:On September 10 2025 06:30 Sent. wrote:
Relocation is not the best outcome. To me it's like saying the best outcome in 1938 is deporting Czechs and Poles to Siberia because Germany feels like it's the only way to keep their homies in Danzig and Prague safe. Palestinians keep sabotaging their position over and over but that doesn't anihilate their right to live in their own homeland. My best outcome today is immortality and to ensure the happiness and health of all living creatures. I am unlikely to achieve that. So when I say ideal outcome, I am more focused on what is even vaguely achievable. Think about it like this: If Qatar and SA allowed 7 people to be assassinated by Israel in the capital of Qatar, what do you think Israel will be prevented from doing? If Netanyahu wants all Palestinians entirely removed/killed, do you think their right to live in their homeland is on the table? It isn't remotely achievable to do a "relocation" without violence, so when you try and wiggle out of "ethnic cleansing" by saying "relocation" instead, you are not focused on what's achievable at all. I think violence is *more* likely than relocation, not less likely. I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything. I am saying I think Israel is about to kill as many people as they feel like on their way to Netanyahu's evil plans. I feel like this is at minimum time number 900 you have framed my posts as defending Israel when I am very clearly describing Israel as having evil intentions and evil goals. I repeatedly point out how Palestinians do a profoundly bad job at mitigating these goals with jihad nonsense, but it doesn't change the fact that Netanyahu is evil. I've repeatedly described Palestinians as the most tragedy-stricken people on the planet. Just saying man, a year ago you were ready to use the word "ethnic cleansing" to describe what you thought was the best achievable outcome, suddenly today it's "relocation" and not ethnic cleansing. Relocation without violence isn't an achievable outcome at all, so your position last year was more logical. On October 08 2023 23:17 Mohdoo wrote:
I should have said ethnic cleansing. Israel seeks to have Palestinians not live there. Either way; every Palestinian parent trying to keep their kids there is a lunatic that should be prevented from harming their children. I'll be honest, I wasn't putting a ton of effort into the nitty gritty wording. I went into this with a general assumption people get what I mean. But you are right to point out I have been wrong in that assumption more than I have been right. I think the absolute minimum bad that will occur is ethnic cleansing. I do not mean ethnic cleansing isn't bad. Ethnic cleansing is very bad and tragic and evil. And I am saying all this because I am genuinely shocked and chilled realizing how likely it all feels. I just don't see SA/Qatar letting this happen otherwise. This is such a major thing to happen. Even ignoring everything else, there is literally no one to negotiate with anymore. Its kind of odd seeing how silent media on all sides of this conflict are. I am seeing very little speculation as to what this all means rather than reporting it simply as an episode of conflict. The implications are giant.
I think if there's any kind of hope to be had it will be in a change of attitude from the west. Letting the fascists get what they want isn't a solution because what happens is just they move on to the next thing. If they are successful in ethnically cleansing Palestine, they won't go "Ok, this worked, so I won't be doing it anymore", much like if Putin gets some territory in Ukraine he's not going to suddenly become a pacifist, that's silly, he'll go after more territory.
In the current situation the spotlight is on Israel's reprehensible actions much more than it has been at any point in history. This creates changes in public perception that at least have a chance of moving the needle. If there's another democratic president after Trump, it might be someone who has a view of this conflict that is more in line with the democratic base's view of the conflict. Is it likely? No, not really, the most likely outcome is probably still that they go with a Newsom type character who will chase the homeless and the trans people all across America until the next fascist is elected; but even that small shot is the best odds that Palestinians have had in decades.
|
On September 10 2025 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:
Looks like Trump cut a deal with Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Allowing 7 Hamas officials to be assassinated in the capital of Qatar seems like the most clear possible sign Saudi Arabia and Qatar have agreed to let Israel kill/displace all Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. Historically, all those Hamas shitbags were entirely safe and there was no way Israel would consider something like this.
Even though Israel's messaging lately has painted a very grim picture of completely wiping out Gaza and West Bank, this feels like a much more significant indicator what is to come. This would not happen if Israel had not been given the thumbs up. If they got the thumbs up for this, Palestinians have officially lost the last, faint glimmer of hope.
Can you source this? If not, can you walk me through the head cannon of it? From what I can read Qatar did not know and is pissed and I've heard nothing about SA.
And then your next is even crazier. Like why would A mean B FORSURE? Like couldn't this strike mean they are sick of killing fighters and civilians, when they just create more and instead want to kill some of the decision makers. Show them they are safe no where? Or a whole bunch of other possibilities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
