Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 524

On April 20 2026 15:47 Nebuchad wrote:
I know you know that but there's nothing wrong with your posts Jock. You're good. Some people are getting desperate.

On April 20 2026 16:49 Jockmcplop wrote:

Thanks neb

After over a decade on these threads i'm comfortable that I know what I'm seeing and I've tried to explain it to billy but I'm not going to get into a long back and forth about it because no-one wants to read that really.
I find it a shame that he insists I am a terrible person because I genuinely think he's not that bad he just can't see outside the 'both sides' way of looking at things.
I'm a very, very ill person, basically on death's door at this point, and I don't have the energy to waste my time banging my head against a brick wall.

On April 19 2026 19:44 PremoBeats wrote:


I can accept that we have differing takes.
I only attribute intent when there is explicit evidence or when the available evidence forms a very strong, low-ambiguity pattern that reasonably constrains alternative explanations. Otherwise, I treat intent as uncertain and keep multiple hypotheses open. You seem to interpret consistent patterns of statements plus actions as strategy more loosely. Neither is wrong in principle but while you are operating at a higher level of inference I am doing so at a stricter evidentiary threshold.
I have been following this conflict for a very long time as well and don't focus solely on everything negative Israel does. I further go for more nuanced media reportings like Ground News, instead of Al Jazeera or New Arab. They can be factually right, but their framings and interpretations seem similar to the notions that you use to get your points across and - at least as I'm concerned - are way too reaching.

To sum it up.. I think what you are doing is pattern recognition -> story constructing -> certainty, while I am going for pattern recognition -> generate alternatives -> withhold certainty.
And to suggest that I am "not as informed"... yeah... I mean. That's like.. your opinion, man.

What I can easily concede and never doubted:
- Israel has expressed occasional interest in minority groups in Syria (including Kurds and Druze) as strategic counterweights in rhetoric
- Turkey strongly opposes Kurdish autonomy near its borders
- Israel’s Syria policy is primarily Iran-focused and border-security-focused
- There is no confirmed Israeli-Kurdish military alliance or operational coordination

What is up to interpretation:
- Israel had concrete plans for Kurdish state-building in Syria
- Turkey directly forced a reversal of Israeli Kurdish policy
- Israeli strikes were part of a coordinated federalization strategy

Your earlier words were, that Israel is "actively trying to rekindle the civil war in Syria". If we take Sa'ar's word - that you used to make your point - at face value, in the most extreme form that we can extract, he wants to establish a separated, safe state... not to rekindle civil war. That claim simply cannot be extrapolated.
And why would he? As I pointed out with the Egypt counterexample: Historically, Israel has no issues to form treaties, when opposing states are no longer threatening... they even traded territory/security for long-term stability. Israel has historically demonstrated willingness to normalize relations and accept stable neighboring states when core, credible security threats are removed (even when not, looking at Gaza 2005). However, whether this applies to Syria depends on the credibility, durability, and enforceability of such conditions in a post-conflict environment.

Among others, all these questions would need answering to create the story that you have established and even then it wouldn't be clear cut:
- 480 strikes directly (!) after the regime collapsed in December, in line with most of what Israel did in the past when trying to establish security in southern Syria (which your own source even shows). What does that have to do with statements made in February? Or with Kurds who operate in northern Syria?
- As all of the named factions have been persecuted by them at one point or another, why should statements about working together against Islamist extremists be controversial?
- Further, do these statements by Sa'ar in any way shape or form imply a rekindling of civil war with no other alternatives, that - arguably seem much more plausible?
- If there were supposed plans by Israel to support minorities in northern Syria: what were they exactly? Training, arming local forces? Via what route? Direct coordinations in operations? Again, across the whole distance of Syria in between Israel and the Kurds? Have we seen any Israeli base in Kurdish regions? Any training equipment or weapon pipelines or plans of them? Any air cover in northern Syria? Any diplomatic campaign except that one statement?
That entire line of your story is purely speculative.
- Could it be that the Israelis stopped talking about the Kurds because of the planed arrangement that was published in March you mentioned yourself (which was before the Turkish-Israeli-meeting in Azerbaijan in April)? The timeline would match there too, so how can you rule out that scenario? Especially when...
- the bombings in southern Syria continued even though you assign Erdogan and Turkey some kind of effect. So what exactly was that effect besides Israel supposedly not talking anymore about the Kurds, which could have a multitude of other explanations like the reaching of an agreement?
- Further, the claim that Israel actually stopped talking about Kurds is factually wrong.
Sa'ar made comments about Kurds in July to other foreign ministers, mostly from Europe.
Sa'ar's fear of Syria oppressing minorities was voiced by him after the incidents in Aleppo, which was in January 2026. So he didn't stop talking about it at all.. only when the agreement was close to being finished. He resumed criticizing the new regime, when the murderous repressions continued or when talking to international colleagues.

"If you look at the whole picture it's very clear."
Yup, to you it may be, that much I understand. Some of your story is factually wrong, most of it can have different explanations and be solely correlational instead of causal. But you treat it like that. Clear. Which is fine for you, but please don't expect others to take the same leaps.

On April 19 2026 14:12 PremoBeats wrote:


Well, there goes a neutral tone with the lmao-start and the last paragraph. I try not to be too dismissive in return, but I've gotta say that your analysis - at least to me - seems to mix facts with emotional conclusions absent evidence, flavored with a lot of speculation. There are leaps that could be true, but most certainly don't have to be; other parts are simply overexaggerated interpretations.

Sa'ar's words can be reasonably interpreted as security framing rather than strategic destabilization intent, which is absolutely legitimate in a power vacuum environment. There are concerns about preventing weapons proliferation or stopping hostile actors exploiting the vacuum.
So yes, in line with everything they said and did about southern and eastern Syria in the past, these actions make absolute sense. Buffer zones are the explanation and most of the Israeli strikes in Syria are predominantly concentrated in southern Syria near the Golan border (Daraa and Quneitra), with a secondary but significant cluster around Damascus targeting military infrastructure and alleged Iranian-linked assets.
Btw, do you have a source for this 600 airstrike claim? I'd like to check what was actually counted (airstrike vs artillery vs drones).

In regards to Erdogan's "stepping in": What do you think which AA was deployed? SHORADs? NASAMS? Or S-300s/S-400s?
And where exactly? The installations I know of, are in place to protect southern Turkey via a northern Syrian buffer zone.. the same thing Israel is doing in the south. This is an area where Israel has operated the least in anyways.
None of those systems are credibly reported as deployed in Syria by Turkey; Turkish systems remain inside Turkey and for even the S-400s to have meaningful effect in their max range you'd need radar sites, command infrastructure and secure logistics, all of which Turkey does not have in Syria.

You further make it seem like Israel has had an operational alliance or direct military support relationship with Kurdish forces in Syria, which is not supported by evidence. Some Israeli political commentary has been sympathetic to Kurdish autonomy and occasional strategic analysis suggested Kurds are a “useful counterweight” to Iran in theory. But nothing more. There are no confirmed “support programs”, no operational command relationship, no formal military alliance, no joint command structures, no sustained weapons supply program and no documented battlefield coordination.
So yeah, while there is no documented “withdrawal from supporting Kurds” it is mostly because there was no support system to withdraw from in the first place. Israeli policy in Syria was and is mainly focused on: Iranian military presence, missile transfers and border security in the Golan area.
And while Turkish pressure was one factor among many (US desire to reduce military footprint in Syria, domestic US political debates, competing priorities like ISIS containment vs regional alliances) you are making it seem that no other explanation is possible. US presence in Syria has been reduced gradually and inconsistently, not suddenly “cut”, because after partnering with the SDF and the territorial defeat of ISIS US support became more limited and conditional.

And in regards to that last paragraph: Israel has repeatedly signaled that stability in neighboring states is preferable, provided it does not include hostile military entrenchment. The Egypt-Israel peace treaty is a strong counterexample to “Israel prefers instability”.



Alright.. thanks for the clarification; now I've got a clearer picture.
And yeah. I can't give you a singular or probably even satisfying answer in regards to the question about aid sites. Violence and mass-casualty incidents near humanitarian aid distribution points have occurred in multiple modern conflict zones (including Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and South Sudan), typically as a result of insecurity, crowding, and ongoing hostilities rather than aid sites being isolated or fully protected environments. Add to that bad decision making in selecting personnel, extremely high population density, confined geography, centralized border-controlled aid entry points as well as an active high-intensity urban warfare environment and high-risk conditions for such incidents are established. This description shouldn't be seen as an excuse though.. simply an explanation. And as I said multiple times already: these incidents should be examined and trialed and the perpetrators or persons in charge should be held accountable as best as possible.

And while I understand that no clear cut comparison is realistic, I think numbers in regards to relative civilian casualty rates can be analyzed given the context of other conflicts, even if the nature of the factions is unclear or there is asymmetry in their fire power. Urban warfare tends to produce similar civilian risk patterns across conflicts... and power asymmetry is playing a more limited role there.
If we acknowledge that ISIS fighters were often clearly identified combatants or that Mosul civilians could often escape in phases, whereas Gaza has much more geographically constrained exit routes, as well as other factors like the behavior of Hamas, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that Gaza has several battlefield conditions that are among the most structurally severe for civilian risk in modern urban warfare. Yet, the relative casualty numbers are lower than in these conflicts. This of course still doesn't allow for a clear cut comparison, but it hints at the idea that the IDF isn't going around, not giving a fuck about civilian damage.

On April 20 2026 00:44 Jockmcplop wrote:
I know billyboy gives me alot of shit for 'low effort posts' but tbh when I see these huge walls of text It seems like people going to an absolutely huge amount of effort to obfuscate something extremely simple.

On April 19 2026 20:10 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:


Syria had a civil war for 14 years with dozens, maybe hundreds, of factions. Many fighting each other. They finally overthrew Assad and got a new government which was in itself a loose coalition of factions around HTS as a core.
What do you, honestly, think would happen if the new government collapses?
There would obviously be more fighting. I mean there was more fighting even with the current government and everyone agrees that it has been extremely contained from what it could have been.

Initially the only thing holding the entire thing together was that HTS beat Assad.
Israel then goes in and
- Bombs the shit out of all military equipment they can find to keep it out of the hands of the new government (because "just in case", obviously not because they don't want them to consolidate their power).
- Have their foreign minister state they want a federalized Syria.
- Invade southern Syria.
- Offers direct protection to a minority faction so they can refuse to integrate and then let them be provocative (almost getting them wiped out by the tribes in the process).
- Have their minister of national security talk about assassinating the new president of Syria (cutting the head of the snake).

Are these the actions of a country that want to stabilize their neighbor? Or are these the actions of a country that wants to destabilize the new government in order to achieve their stated policy/vision? Which one feels more likely?
And what would be the effect of such destabilisation in early 2025? (Very likely civil war, again).

Did they continue to bomb in southern Syria? Yes. Does that mean there was no effect from Turkey? The effect was that Israel did not get involved with the faction that held 1/3 of Syria and all the oil fields and there was a deal with USA involved to not do anything for a year with the kurds. Which was upheld.
Al-Shara held his cool, managed to calm his followers down, got the Alwaite coast under control with no new massacres, waited out the 1 year truce with the kurds, dealt with that. The country held together, despite Israel.

On April 20 2026 00:44 Jockmcplop wrote:
I know billyboy gives me alot of shit for 'low effort posts' but tbh when I see these huge walls of text It seems like people going to an absolutely huge amount of effort to obfuscate something extremely simple.

On April 20 2026 09:47 Jockmcplop wrote:
Billy have you tried maybe interpreting other people's post a bit more generously?

On April 20 2026 02:42 WombaT wrote:

But they won’t be trialled or held accountable will they?

The very factors that make pursuing a policy of wiping out a terrorist organisation in a rather small, often population dense urban area, as a strong and stable state, are simultaneously factors that should make securing aid sites easier in areas in theory

I think its perfectly fair to try to find a baseline from comparable phenomena

If we’re looking aid distribution specifically I’m not sure we can look at examples with as many differences as commonality to find said baseline.

In addition we can also look at Israel’s own past record in this domain, which has been considerably better historically even if one may find other policies objectionable. We can baseline something partly against its past self

Occam and his razor aren’t faultless tools, they are useful though.

There’s been a marked increase in hostility to third party institutions or observers operating in the area too. The BBC doc I watched on aid sites had to rely on an IDF whistleblower for footage from aid sites as they were barred from entering and observing themselves.

There’s shades of ‘aurora borealis, localised entirely within your kitchen?’ ‘May I see it?’ ‘No.’ to some of this

On April 20 2026 02:55 WombaT wrote:

Best I can do is 9 paragraphs on that bombing children is morally complicated I’m afraid.

On April 20 2026 13:51 PremoBeats wrote:


The way you frame them, no, these actions are not the actions of a country that wants to stabilize their neighbor. But ironically enough, that is exactly what Sa'ar mentioned in the speech you quoted. By acknowledging that Syria has an incredible amount of factions and diverse communities, a separated Syria is a more stable and safe Syria... you know win-win. While of course, Syria will also have less possible influence to do harm to Israel. But that's the thing... you assume the worst intent and singular master plan for these takes, yet most of them are complex and have several layers. You formulate an "obvious" result, based on leaps.
To not give Israel any credit in regards to their security concerns seems wild to me, but hey, I guess we won't find common ground here. I still think the exaggerations and motifs you attribute to Iseael to arrive at the conclusion that it is actively rekindling a civil war are far from being clear.
We agreed on contention #1 (hard to disagree when a user on the same page repeats the contested phrasing). For #2 and #3, well... I still don't see Israel not caring about civilians or it being similar to Iran. I listed what Israel has done to an enemy faction, relative data sets and general conduct. Israel isn't repressing their own population, by killing tens of thousands.
Nearly all of Israel's moves in other countries can be explained by security concerns and attacks against enemy factions who escalated first. It is hard to "prevent conflict" in neighboring countries when they throw missile, after missile, after missile.
Even the claim that Israel isn't a good neighbor or did nothing to prevent conflict can be contested.
Jordan: Long-standing security coordination, intelligence sharing (especially on jihadist threats), water and energy cooperation agreements. They are interested in a stable regime.
Egypt: Deep security coordination in Sinai against ISIS affiliates, gas exports and economic ties, maintenance of the peace framework... same thing. Interested in a stable regime.
Whenever the other country isn't actively trying to bomb the shit out of Israel, Israel doesn't seem to be interested in bombing the shit out of them, even though these countries have been previously at war with it too. Now how is that for inference? Do you seriously believe, that Israel would keep bombing southern Syria if there is long lasting peace on the table and the Jihadists are eradicated?



Pretty ironic to see these posts on the same page. Yeah, all we do is obfuscate something simple. Israel is evil, does only bad things, is committing a genocide and simply - in all relevant aspects - is the bad guy; nothing complex about the region's history, religious aspects, military operations or geopolitical factors in this thread or topic. Why don't we close the thread as the very simply stuff that we have been trying to obfuscate has been exposed. Nothing more to discuss, right? Gee whiz. If history and life would always be as easy a JJR's explanation for all this.




Probably not. War crimes often won't be.
Yes, there of course are also aspects that in theory make this enterprise of securing aid sites easier. And a lot of complexity (some of it only in Israel's realm of responsibility) led to this. You won't see me try to defend it. It shouldn't happen. But it still doesn't follow that it is preventable or Israel is doing it with intent, like other actions (for example trying to starve out Hamas and hitting the population at the same time, which contributed to this disaster and in my opinion is a war crime).



Really... ?

The way you frame them, no, these actions are not the actions of a country that wants to stabilize their neighbor. But ironically enough, that is exactly what Sa'ar mentioned in the speech you quoted. By acknowledging that Syria has an incredible amount of factions and diverse communities, a separated Syria is a more stable and safe Syria... you know win-win. While of course, Syria will also have less possible influence to do harm to Israel. But that's the thing... you assume the worst intent and singular master plan for these takes, yet most of them are complex and have several layers. You formulate an "obvious" result, based on leaps.
To not give Israel any credit in regards to their security concerns seems wild to me, but hey, I guess we won't find common ground here. I still think the exaggerations and motifs you attribute to Iseael to arrive at the conclusion that it is actively rekindling a civil war are far from being clear.
We agreed on contention #1 (hard to disagree when a user on the same page repeats the contested phrasing). For #2 and #3, well... I still don't see Israel not caring about civilians or it being similar to Iran. I listed what Israel has done to an enemy faction, relative data sets and general conduct. Israel isn't repressing their own population, by killing tens of thousands.
Nearly all of Israel's moves in other countries can be explained by security concerns and attacks against enemy factions who escalated first. It is hard to "prevent conflict" in neighboring countries when they throw missile, after missile, after missile.
Even the claim that Israel isn't a good neighbor or did nothing to prevent conflict can be contested.
Jordan: Long-standing security coordination, intelligence sharing (especially on jihadist threats), water and energy cooperation agreements. They are interested in a stable regime.
Egypt: Deep security coordination in Sinai against ISIS affiliates, gas exports and economic ties, maintenance of the peace framework... same thing. Interested in a stable regime.
Whenever the other country isn't actively trying to bomb the shit out of Israel, Israel doesn't seem to be interested in bombing the shit out of them, even though these countries have been previously at war with it too. Now how is that for inference? Do you seriously believe, that Israel would keep bombing southern Syria if there is long lasting peace on the table and the Jihadists are eradicated?

On April 20 2026 15:47 Nebuchad wrote:
I know you know that but there's nothing wrong with your posts Jock. You're good. Some people are getting desperate.

On April 20 2026 16:49 Jockmcplop wrote:

Thanks neb

After over a decade on these threads i'm comfortable that I know what I'm seeing and I've tried to explain it to billy but I'm not going to get into a long back and forth about it because no-one wants to read that really.
I find it a shame that he insists I am a terrible person because I genuinely think he's not that bad he just can't see outside the 'both sides' way of looking at things.
I'm a very, very ill person, basically on death's door at this point, and I don't have the energy to waste my time banging my head against a brick wall.

On April 23 2026 04:02 Ryzel wrote:


Fuck dude, I’m sorry to hear this. I hope whatever it is isn’t causing a lot of physical pain. Whatever happens you should know your time spent upholding your beliefs and values on a random gaming forum wasn’t a waste of time, I listened.

On April 23 2026 05:35 Jockmcplop wrote:


Thanks for this Ryzel, and to everyone else who left lovely messages.
Unfortunately I have had to deal with dialysis for over a decade and a failed kidney transplant a few years ago absolutely ruined my health permanently, and its only declined since then.
I do feel slightly uncomfortable talking too much about it, but I'm really thankful for the messages I've received.
As I said to GH, tl.net is a beautiful place, and these politics threads stand out above anything else I've found online, so enjoy your time here

ps I'm high as fuck on oxycodone right now... Don't know if that's apparent from my posting.