|
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 October 21 2023 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 02:27 RvB wrote:Two hostages released by Hamas Hamas has released two U.S. hostages - a mother and her daughter - "for humanitarian reasons" in response to Qatari mediation efforts, Hamas armed wing spokesman Abu Ubaida said in a statement on Friday. www.reuters.com But will/has Israel release/d them?
Apparently they're in the hands of the red cross. It's not clear yet if they'll leave via Egypt or Israel. I don't see why Israel wouldn't let them go if they go there.
The pending release of two American hostages from Gaza Friday is "hopefully the start of more to come," a diplomatic source with knowledge of the arrangements told CNN.
The source confirmed that the hostages were with the Red Cross and indicated no exchanges were part of their release.
edition.cnn.com
|
On October 21 2023 03:29 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2023 02:27 RvB wrote:Two hostages released by Hamas Hamas has released two U.S. hostages - a mother and her daughter - "for humanitarian reasons" in response to Qatari mediation efforts, Hamas armed wing spokesman Abu Ubaida said in a statement on Friday. www.reuters.com But will/has Israel release/d them? Apparently they're in the hands of the red cross. It's not clear yet if they'll leave via Egypt or Israel. I don't see why Israel wouldn't let them go if they go there. Show nested quote +The pending release of two American hostages from Gaza Friday is "hopefully the start of more to come," a diplomatic source with knowledge of the arrangements told CNN.
The source confirmed that the hostages were with the Red Cross and indicated no exchanges were part of their release. edition.cnn.com
Israel hasn't let any other US citizens out of Gaza yet.
|
On October 21 2023 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 23:24 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 20 2023 15:54 Oukka wrote:On October 20 2023 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 12:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 11:58 Salazarz wrote:On October 20 2023 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 10:20 Salazarz wrote:If we assume 100% of all houses bombed were occupied by people who intended to kill an Israeli the next day, we would all agree it is entirely appropriate to bomb those houses. No, we would not 'all agree' that it is appropriate, what kind of psycho bullshit assumption is that? They're living in a ghetto ran by radical terror group and cut off from virtually all 'normal' interactions of the modern civilized world, obviously they fucking hate the people who bear at least a significant portion of responsibility for their situation, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to just kill them all. I'm pretty sure most folks in North Vietnam would kill an American if they had an opportunity to do so, that doesn't make the bombing campaigns and indiscriminate strafing of their villages any less of a disgusting war crime. When you create an oppressed minority that hates their stronger neighbor, the 'appropriate' response isn't to oppress them even harder until their hate for you reaches a level sufficient to justify straight up exterminating the whole lot, it's to figure out a way to ease the tensions and co-exist with as little violence as possible. When someone is about to kill you, generally people agree it is ethical to defend yourself and/or kill them first. I separated the people who hate Israelis from the people who are actively intending to kill Israelis because you are right to point out that living under Hamas is going to make people think/feel very hatefully, but people shouldn't be killed for being hateful. I think it would only be ethical to kill someone who hates you if you know they were about to kill you. I think you may have misinterpreted my message because I am not equating hate with a guarantee the hate will translate into direct action to kill. In short, hate = no reason to kill. About to kill you = plenty of reason to kill. I agree the ideal path is peaceful coexistence. Since Hamas has clearly stated they intend to repeat their attack and that they want all Jews to be dead, inside and outside of Israel, I think we can confidently say whatever coexisting future they work towards should not include Hamas. And so that is where "of course it makes sense to just kill every soldier and/or military member of Hamas" because there is clearly stated intention to repeat the killings they have already conducted. Hamas is very clear that they are at war with Israel. And so it follows that Israel is also at war with Hamas. So it is entirely reasonable for Hamas soldiers to kill Israeli soldiers and it is reasonable for Israeli soldiers to kill Hamas soldiers. But it is not ok for soldiers to kill non-soldiers of course. That's where this whole conundrum gets difficult. If Hamas soldiers try to play on that dynamic by using residential areas for military purposes, where Israel has the choice between bombing a house or allowing rockets to be launched, the only way Israel is able to avoid killing Palestinian non-combatants is to consciously decide to allow Hamas to just keep launching rockets into Israel forever. Clearly that would be silly, since it would be Israel patting Hamas on the head and saying "I understand you are upset, but I am going to take the high road and allow for non-combatant Israelis to be killed". Is it that you are saying Israel is supposed to take the high road or something? Be the bigger man by allowing more attacks like the recent one to happen every so often? Since Hamas is clear that they intend to kill all Jews, not just the ones in settlements and whatnot, taking the high-road is more so choosing to lose a war and be wiped out. What am I misunderstanding? Is Hamas not intending to kill all Jews? So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people? From my perspective his prescription basically boils down to "voluntarily being ethnically cleansed is better than being forcibly genocided so they should choose the former or suffer the latter". Considering he very recently learned leaving isn't actually a choice available to Palestinians even if they wanted to, it's now essentially "Stand in the empty desert without water or food until you die or you're maybe lucky enough to be allowed to leave your homeland/rubble where your home used to be indefinitely (probably forever)". The whole “nowhere to go” thing is a manufactured problem created by the neighboring nations that view Palestinians as a weapon to use against Israel. They have “nowhere to go” because the nations claiming to be sympathetic prefer Palestinians to remain exactly as they are. And they only need anywhere to go to because Israel is trying to smoke them out in an ethnic cleansing.. By which you mean, Israel already gave them the land, so they're obviously ok if they stay, but Israel has to destroy the terrorists organization Hamas and would rather not kill civilians while doing it. Therefore it's best for all involved that the civilians leave the war zone. That ethnic cleansing? One problem with your reasoning is that Israel objects to Palestinians right to self-defense against Israel's illegal occupation/settlements regardless of whether Hamas exists or not.
I think your time frame reference is problematic. It is easy to frame it within recent events, but when you contextualize it within not just what we currently call Israel, but also like 1000 km in each direction away from that, the whole thing is a dumpster fire.
GH was correct to point out I was mostly ignorant on this topic, so I did my best to at least somewhat understand it.
There was a Reddit comment I saw recently that was basically like "People should look up what Israel was called before it was called Israel". So I did, and wouldn't ya know it, it was called Palestine. Then someone replied to that comment saying they should look up what it was called before Palestine.
Just for anyone who is curious and wants to do what I did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel
You don't need to start from the absolute beginning, but if you do, it is hard not to laugh at how long this train wreck has been almost exactly the same. My conclusion was that it is remarkably dishonest for people who are familiar with the actual history of the situation to frame this as some kind of bully vs victim scenario. They have been trading punches repeatedly for the last trillion years. And it has been mostly the same'ish conflict for the last few hundred.
Are any of you familiar with the old movie "Highlander"? When I finished reading that Wikipedia article above, I was immediately reminded of Highlander because its hard to view the situation as anything other than that.
"There can be only one" is the belief and motto among the immortals in the original Highlander film, its sequels and spin-offs. It implies that all immortals must fight and kill one another until only one remains standing; this "one" shall receive The Prize.
My impression after finally actually reading the whole damn history of this stupid conflict is that it is remarkably dishonest whenever anyone frames the situation as having some kind of "baseline" condition. Because even when you go back and find times when stuff was mostly peaceful, EVERY SINGLE TIME, there was an enormous asterisk. It was never actually settled. Even if things seemed kind of ok or even great, there was some kind of other dynamic that was not being addressed and was slowly boiling over. All of the suggestions people are making today are extra funny after you read through this article because WE TRIED THE SAME THINGS ALREADY LMAO. They literally just fight again later for the same reason.
Here are the ACTUAL requirements for a peaceful resolution to Israel vs Palestine:
1) Deeply fundamentalist Jewish scholars agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
2) Deeply fundamentalist Shia and Sunni Muslims agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
3) Israeli military powers agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
4) Israeli private business interests agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
5) Shia and Sunni military powers agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
6) Shia and Sunni private business interests agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
7) Israeli common Joe Shmoe agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
8) Shia and Sunni Joe Shmoe agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
Until all 8 of the above are satisfied, people are just shoving their heads in the sand by pretending some fancy bullshit solution is remotely viable. When people advocate for "reversing settlements" and other similar things, they are not saying they want the conflict to end. They are saying they want Jews to lose. Which is fine because I see no real reason to side with Jews vs Muslims in this conflict. As I have said before, my ideal solution involves both groups being relocated because they have both shown they can't behave themselves with this piece of land. They are too fairy-tale-indulging regarding this specific land and they need to just trade with Arkansas or something. But that's a whole other conversation. Point is, the solutions people like GH and you are proposing have been tried before and it is silly to pretend it would end the conflict. It would just be a better situation for Muslims for the moment. Its not a solution.
|
On October 21 2023 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 03:29 RvB wrote:On October 21 2023 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2023 02:27 RvB wrote:Two hostages released by Hamas Hamas has released two U.S. hostages - a mother and her daughter - "for humanitarian reasons" in response to Qatari mediation efforts, Hamas armed wing spokesman Abu Ubaida said in a statement on Friday. www.reuters.com But will/has Israel release/d them? Apparently they're in the hands of the red cross. It's not clear yet if they'll leave via Egypt or Israel. I don't see why Israel wouldn't let them go if they go there. The pending release of two American hostages from Gaza Friday is "hopefully the start of more to come," a diplomatic source with knowledge of the arrangements told CNN.
The source confirmed that the hostages were with the Red Cross and indicated no exchanges were part of their release. edition.cnn.com Israel hasn't let any other US citizens out of Gaza yet.
Right, they block the border crossing. Thought you meant release them when they're in Israel. They're there now according to CNN.
Hamas has released US citizens Judith Tai Raanan and her 17-year-old daughter Natali Raanan, who were kidnapped during the initial attack against Israel nearly two weeks ago, according to the Office of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Raanans are from the Chicago area and had been visiting relatives in the kibbutz of Nahal Oz in southern Israel when it was attacked by Hamas, according to their family.
They were handed over at the border and are currently on their way to an Israeli military base to be reunited with family, according to a statement from the prime minister’s office.
edition.cnn.com
|
On October 21 2023 03:57 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2023 03:29 RvB wrote:On October 21 2023 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2023 02:27 RvB wrote:Two hostages released by Hamas Hamas has released two U.S. hostages - a mother and her daughter - "for humanitarian reasons" in response to Qatari mediation efforts, Hamas armed wing spokesman Abu Ubaida said in a statement on Friday. www.reuters.com But will/has Israel release/d them? Apparently they're in the hands of the red cross. It's not clear yet if they'll leave via Egypt or Israel. I don't see why Israel wouldn't let them go if they go there. The pending release of two American hostages from Gaza Friday is "hopefully the start of more to come," a diplomatic source with knowledge of the arrangements told CNN.
The source confirmed that the hostages were with the Red Cross and indicated no exchanges were part of their release. edition.cnn.com Israel hasn't let any other US citizens out of Gaza yet. Right, they block the border crossing. Thought you meant release them when they're in Israel. They're there now according to CNN. Show nested quote +Hamas has released US citizens Judith Tai Raanan and her 17-year-old daughter Natali Raanan, who were kidnapped during the initial attack against Israel nearly two weeks ago, according to the Office of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Raanans are from the Chicago area and had been visiting relatives in the kibbutz of Nahal Oz in southern Israel when it was attacked by Hamas, according to their family.
They were handed over at the border and are currently on their way to an Israeli military base to be reunited with family, according to a statement from the prime minister’s office. edition.cnn.com
Thanks for the info.
I wonder what crossing they used and why Israel would say they haven't let other US citizens which Israel is holding in Gaza while depriving them of food, water, medicine, etc through it?
|
On October 21 2023 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 01:09 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 21 2023 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 23:24 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 20 2023 15:54 Oukka wrote:On October 20 2023 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 12:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 11:58 Salazarz wrote:On October 20 2023 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 10:20 Salazarz wrote:
[quote]
No, we would not 'all agree' that it is appropriate, what kind of psycho bullshit assumption is that? They're living in a ghetto ran by radical terror group and cut off from virtually all 'normal' interactions of the modern civilized world, obviously they fucking hate the people who bear at least a significant portion of responsibility for their situation, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to just kill them all.
I'm pretty sure most folks in North Vietnam would kill an American if they had an opportunity to do so, that doesn't make the bombing campaigns and indiscriminate strafing of their villages any less of a disgusting war crime.
When you create an oppressed minority that hates their stronger neighbor, the 'appropriate' response isn't to oppress them even harder until their hate for you reaches a level sufficient to justify straight up exterminating the whole lot, it's to figure out a way to ease the tensions and co-exist with as little violence as possible. When someone is about to kill you, generally people agree it is ethical to defend yourself and/or kill them first. I separated the people who hate Israelis from the people who are actively intending to kill Israelis because you are right to point out that living under Hamas is going to make people think/feel very hatefully, but people shouldn't be killed for being hateful. I think it would only be ethical to kill someone who hates you if you know they were about to kill you. I think you may have misinterpreted my message because I am not equating hate with a guarantee the hate will translate into direct action to kill. In short, hate = no reason to kill. About to kill you = plenty of reason to kill. I agree the ideal path is peaceful coexistence. Since Hamas has clearly stated they intend to repeat their attack and that they want all Jews to be dead, inside and outside of Israel, I think we can confidently say whatever coexisting future they work towards should not include Hamas. And so that is where "of course it makes sense to just kill every soldier and/or military member of Hamas" because there is clearly stated intention to repeat the killings they have already conducted. Hamas is very clear that they are at war with Israel. And so it follows that Israel is also at war with Hamas. So it is entirely reasonable for Hamas soldiers to kill Israeli soldiers and it is reasonable for Israeli soldiers to kill Hamas soldiers. But it is not ok for soldiers to kill non-soldiers of course. That's where this whole conundrum gets difficult. If Hamas soldiers try to play on that dynamic by using residential areas for military purposes, where Israel has the choice between bombing a house or allowing rockets to be launched, the only way Israel is able to avoid killing Palestinian non-combatants is to consciously decide to allow Hamas to just keep launching rockets into Israel forever. Clearly that would be silly, since it would be Israel patting Hamas on the head and saying "I understand you are upset, but I am going to take the high road and allow for non-combatant Israelis to be killed". Is it that you are saying Israel is supposed to take the high road or something? Be the bigger man by allowing more attacks like the recent one to happen every so often? Since Hamas is clear that they intend to kill all Jews, not just the ones in settlements and whatnot, taking the high-road is more so choosing to lose a war and be wiped out. What am I misunderstanding? Is Hamas not intending to kill all Jews? So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people? From my perspective his prescription basically boils down to "voluntarily being ethnically cleansed is better than being forcibly genocided so they should choose the former or suffer the latter". Considering he very recently learned leaving isn't actually a choice available to Palestinians even if they wanted to, it's now essentially "Stand in the empty desert without water or food until you die or you're maybe lucky enough to be allowed to leave your homeland/rubble where your home used to be indefinitely (probably forever)". The whole “nowhere to go” thing is a manufactured problem created by the neighboring nations that view Palestinians as a weapon to use against Israel. They have “nowhere to go” because the nations claiming to be sympathetic prefer Palestinians to remain exactly as they are. And they only need anywhere to go to because Israel is trying to smoke them out in an ethnic cleansing.. By which you mean, Israel already gave them the land, so they're obviously ok if they stay, but Israel has to destroy the terrorists organization Hamas and would rather not kill civilians while doing it. Therefore it's best for all involved that the civilians leave the war zone. That ethnic cleansing? One problem with your reasoning is that Israel objects to Palestinians right to self-defense against Israel's illegal occupation/settlements regardless of whether Hamas exists or not. Oukka's statement about them needing somewhere to go (clearly talking about Gazans, because they are the ones moving around right now) has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. If other things are ethnic cleansing and what Palestinians should do here are different questions. But displacing Gazans so they don't get shot in the crossfire is not ethnic cleansing. To prove that, you should know that Israel is doing the exact same thing to Jews near the conflict zones. It has evacuated civilians near both Gaza and Lebanon to protect them. They aren't "ethnic cleansing" the Jews they relocate during the war and they aren't doing it to the Gazans either. It's not (just) a critique of that specific response, it's of your core reasoning.
Israel's open intentions are to forcibly expel the entire Palestinian population of Gaza into Egypt. It's ethnic cleansing. What's still up in the air (less so each day the siege continues and the US blocks calls/UN resolutions for a ceasefire) is if Israel will choose to genocide the Palestinians of Gaza instead.
Their public statements say that people can return after the conflict. And that they specifically want to destroy Hamas.
But perhaps, when you say "open intentions," you mean hidden agendas.
|
On October 21 2023 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 23:24 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 20 2023 15:54 Oukka wrote:On October 20 2023 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 12:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 11:58 Salazarz wrote:On October 20 2023 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 10:20 Salazarz wrote:If we assume 100% of all houses bombed were occupied by people who intended to kill an Israeli the next day, we would all agree it is entirely appropriate to bomb those houses. No, we would not 'all agree' that it is appropriate, what kind of psycho bullshit assumption is that? They're living in a ghetto ran by radical terror group and cut off from virtually all 'normal' interactions of the modern civilized world, obviously they fucking hate the people who bear at least a significant portion of responsibility for their situation, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to just kill them all. I'm pretty sure most folks in North Vietnam would kill an American if they had an opportunity to do so, that doesn't make the bombing campaigns and indiscriminate strafing of their villages any less of a disgusting war crime. When you create an oppressed minority that hates their stronger neighbor, the 'appropriate' response isn't to oppress them even harder until their hate for you reaches a level sufficient to justify straight up exterminating the whole lot, it's to figure out a way to ease the tensions and co-exist with as little violence as possible. When someone is about to kill you, generally people agree it is ethical to defend yourself and/or kill them first. I separated the people who hate Israelis from the people who are actively intending to kill Israelis because you are right to point out that living under Hamas is going to make people think/feel very hatefully, but people shouldn't be killed for being hateful. I think it would only be ethical to kill someone who hates you if you know they were about to kill you. I think you may have misinterpreted my message because I am not equating hate with a guarantee the hate will translate into direct action to kill. In short, hate = no reason to kill. About to kill you = plenty of reason to kill. I agree the ideal path is peaceful coexistence. Since Hamas has clearly stated they intend to repeat their attack and that they want all Jews to be dead, inside and outside of Israel, I think we can confidently say whatever coexisting future they work towards should not include Hamas. And so that is where "of course it makes sense to just kill every soldier and/or military member of Hamas" because there is clearly stated intention to repeat the killings they have already conducted. Hamas is very clear that they are at war with Israel. And so it follows that Israel is also at war with Hamas. So it is entirely reasonable for Hamas soldiers to kill Israeli soldiers and it is reasonable for Israeli soldiers to kill Hamas soldiers. But it is not ok for soldiers to kill non-soldiers of course. That's where this whole conundrum gets difficult. If Hamas soldiers try to play on that dynamic by using residential areas for military purposes, where Israel has the choice between bombing a house or allowing rockets to be launched, the only way Israel is able to avoid killing Palestinian non-combatants is to consciously decide to allow Hamas to just keep launching rockets into Israel forever. Clearly that would be silly, since it would be Israel patting Hamas on the head and saying "I understand you are upset, but I am going to take the high road and allow for non-combatant Israelis to be killed". Is it that you are saying Israel is supposed to take the high road or something? Be the bigger man by allowing more attacks like the recent one to happen every so often? Since Hamas is clear that they intend to kill all Jews, not just the ones in settlements and whatnot, taking the high-road is more so choosing to lose a war and be wiped out. What am I misunderstanding? Is Hamas not intending to kill all Jews? So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people? From my perspective his prescription basically boils down to "voluntarily being ethnically cleansed is better than being forcibly genocided so they should choose the former or suffer the latter". Considering he very recently learned leaving isn't actually a choice available to Palestinians even if they wanted to, it's now essentially "Stand in the empty desert without water or food until you die or you're maybe lucky enough to be allowed to leave your homeland/rubble where your home used to be indefinitely (probably forever)". The whole “nowhere to go” thing is a manufactured problem created by the neighboring nations that view Palestinians as a weapon to use against Israel. They have “nowhere to go” because the nations claiming to be sympathetic prefer Palestinians to remain exactly as they are. And they only need anywhere to go to because Israel is trying to smoke them out in an ethnic cleansing.. By which you mean, Israel already gave them the land, so they're obviously ok if they stay, but Israel has to destroy the terrorists organization Hamas and would rather not kill civilians while doing it. Therefore it's best for all involved that the civilians leave the war zone. That ethnic cleansing? One problem with your reasoning is that Israel objects to Palestinians right to self-defense against Israel's illegal occupation/settlements regardless of whether Hamas exists or not. I think your time frame reference is problematic. It is easy to frame it within recent events, but when you contextualize it within not just what we currently call Israel, but also like 1000 km in each direction away from that, the whole thing is a dumpster fire. GH was correct to point out I was mostly ignorant on this topic, so I did my best to at least somewhat understand it. There was a Reddit comment I saw recently that was basically like "People should look up what Israel was called before it was called Israel". So I did, and wouldn't ya know it, it was called Palestine. Then someone replied to that comment saying they should look up what it was called before Palestine. Just for anyone who is curious and wants to do what I did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_IsraelYou don't need to start from the absolute beginning, but if you do, it is hard not to laugh at how long this train wreck has been almost exactly the same. My conclusion was that it is remarkably dishonest for people who are familiar with the actual history of the situation to frame this as some kind of bully vs victim scenario. They have been trading punches repeatedly for the last trillion years. And it has been mostly the same'ish conflict for the last few hundred. Are any of you familiar with the old movie "Highlander"? When I finished reading that Wikipedia article above, I was immediately reminded of Highlander because its hard to view the situation as anything other than that. Show nested quote +"There can be only one" is the belief and motto among the immortals in the original Highlander film, its sequels and spin-offs. It implies that all immortals must fight and kill one another until only one remains standing; this "one" shall receive The Prize. My impression after finally actually reading the whole damn history of this stupid conflict is that it is remarkably dishonest whenever anyone frames the situation as having some kind of "baseline" condition. Because even when you go back and find times when stuff was mostly peaceful, EVERY SINGLE TIME, there was an enormous asterisk. It was never actually settled. Even if things seemed kind of ok or even great, there was some kind of other dynamic that was not being addressed and was slowly boiling over. All of the suggestions people are making today are extra funny after you read through this article because WE TRIED THE SAME THINGS ALREADY LMAO. They literally just fight again later for the same reason. Here are the ACTUAL requirements for a peaceful resolution to Israel vs Palestine: 1) Deeply fundamentalist Jewish scholars agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 2) Deeply fundamentalist Shia and Sunni Muslims agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 3) Israeli military powers agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 4) Israeli private business interests agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 5) Shia and Sunni military powers agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 6) Shia and Sunni private business interests agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 7) Israeli common Joe Shmoe agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 8) Shia and Sunni Joe Shmoe agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues Until all 8 of the above are satisfied, people are just shoving their heads in the sand by pretending some fancy bullshit solution is remotely viable. When people advocate for "reversing settlements" and other similar things, they are not saying they want the conflict to end. They are saying they want Jews to lose. Which is fine because I see no real reason to side with Jews vs Muslims in this conflict. As I have said before, my ideal solution involves both groups being relocated because they have both shown they can't behave themselves with this piece of land. They are too fairy-tale-indulging regarding this specific land and they need to just trade with Arkansas or something. But that's a whole other conversation. Point is, the solutions people like GH and you are proposing have been tried before and it is silly to pretend it would end the conflict. It would just be a better situation for Muslims for the moment. Its not a solution.
I think the only sane view on this conflict is to force yourself mentally to not take sides and then view the "good" outcome as the one that causes the least amount of suffering for everyone.
Unfortunately, in recent history the best outcomes for Israel has been when they responded to violence with overwhelming relentless force. It's worked from 1948 onwards. Imho the reason why Hamas is releasing US hostages is that they have realised that they caught the car this time and they have no idea how to deal with it. Israel is not going to stop punching and they need the US to step in and stop them before Gaza is a parking lot.
I would greatly prefer if there could be some deal ASAP where all hostages are released and the bombs stops dropping. Unfortunately I think we are weeks or months away from the US growing sick of it, if Hamas would even consider it at all.
Edit: "stops, not starts (obviously).
|
On October 21 2023 01:24 Mikau wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 22:48 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 20 2023 15:53 Mikau wrote:
Blaming the 'nowhere to go' on the surrounding nations instead of the group doing the displacing is text book victim blaming. Unless Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon are the victims of this crisis somehow, I don't really see how that is victim blaming. Now when people say things like: Every country who accepted large numbers of Palestinian refugees experienced terrorism, civil unrest, and eventually civil war/revolution at the hands of those refugees. Therefore the reason they have no real friends in the region is because they burned all those bridges by having such a propensity for violence. That might be victim blaming. Yes, being forced to take in millions of people forcefully removed from their homeland would make them victims.
Ok... but you were claiming to have a "textbook example" of the phrase "victim blaming"
But Palestinians were the initial victims discussed here. "Victim blaming" would be saying: the Palestinians are suffering, but it's their own fault.
On the other hand saying: Palestinians are suffering, so Egypt should do something about it (even if Egypt does that, then they will suffer in a different way at some point in the future.)
is not "victim blaming."
But listen, if you can find a single textbook on the face of the planet that defines "victim blaming" with a case anywhere near as convoluted as that one, I'll be happy to admit I was wrong.
|
On October 21 2023 00:52 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 23:28 ChristianS wrote:On October 20 2023 23:24 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 20 2023 15:54 Oukka wrote:On October 20 2023 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 12:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 11:58 Salazarz wrote:On October 20 2023 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 10:20 Salazarz wrote:If we assume 100% of all houses bombed were occupied by people who intended to kill an Israeli the next day, we would all agree it is entirely appropriate to bomb those houses. No, we would not 'all agree' that it is appropriate, what kind of psycho bullshit assumption is that? They're living in a ghetto ran by radical terror group and cut off from virtually all 'normal' interactions of the modern civilized world, obviously they fucking hate the people who bear at least a significant portion of responsibility for their situation, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to just kill them all. I'm pretty sure most folks in North Vietnam would kill an American if they had an opportunity to do so, that doesn't make the bombing campaigns and indiscriminate strafing of their villages any less of a disgusting war crime. When you create an oppressed minority that hates their stronger neighbor, the 'appropriate' response isn't to oppress them even harder until their hate for you reaches a level sufficient to justify straight up exterminating the whole lot, it's to figure out a way to ease the tensions and co-exist with as little violence as possible. When someone is about to kill you, generally people agree it is ethical to defend yourself and/or kill them first. I separated the people who hate Israelis from the people who are actively intending to kill Israelis because you are right to point out that living under Hamas is going to make people think/feel very hatefully, but people shouldn't be killed for being hateful. I think it would only be ethical to kill someone who hates you if you know they were about to kill you. I think you may have misinterpreted my message because I am not equating hate with a guarantee the hate will translate into direct action to kill. In short, hate = no reason to kill. About to kill you = plenty of reason to kill. I agree the ideal path is peaceful coexistence. Since Hamas has clearly stated they intend to repeat their attack and that they want all Jews to be dead, inside and outside of Israel, I think we can confidently say whatever coexisting future they work towards should not include Hamas. And so that is where "of course it makes sense to just kill every soldier and/or military member of Hamas" because there is clearly stated intention to repeat the killings they have already conducted. Hamas is very clear that they are at war with Israel. And so it follows that Israel is also at war with Hamas. So it is entirely reasonable for Hamas soldiers to kill Israeli soldiers and it is reasonable for Israeli soldiers to kill Hamas soldiers. But it is not ok for soldiers to kill non-soldiers of course. That's where this whole conundrum gets difficult. If Hamas soldiers try to play on that dynamic by using residential areas for military purposes, where Israel has the choice between bombing a house or allowing rockets to be launched, the only way Israel is able to avoid killing Palestinian non-combatants is to consciously decide to allow Hamas to just keep launching rockets into Israel forever. Clearly that would be silly, since it would be Israel patting Hamas on the head and saying "I understand you are upset, but I am going to take the high road and allow for non-combatant Israelis to be killed". Is it that you are saying Israel is supposed to take the high road or something? Be the bigger man by allowing more attacks like the recent one to happen every so often? Since Hamas is clear that they intend to kill all Jews, not just the ones in settlements and whatnot, taking the high-road is more so choosing to lose a war and be wiped out. What am I misunderstanding? Is Hamas not intending to kill all Jews? So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people? From my perspective his prescription basically boils down to "voluntarily being ethnically cleansed is better than being forcibly genocided so they should choose the former or suffer the latter". Considering he very recently learned leaving isn't actually a choice available to Palestinians even if they wanted to, it's now essentially "Stand in the empty desert without water or food until you die or you're maybe lucky enough to be allowed to leave your homeland/rubble where your home used to be indefinitely (probably forever)". The whole “nowhere to go” thing is a manufactured problem created by the neighboring nations that view Palestinians as a weapon to use against Israel. They have “nowhere to go” because the nations claiming to be sympathetic prefer Palestinians to remain exactly as they are. And they only need anywhere to go to because Israel is trying to smoke them out in an ethnic cleansing.. By which you mean, Israel already gave them the land, so they're obviously ok if they stay, but Israel has to destroy the terrorists organization Hamas and would rather not kill civilians while doing it. Therefore it's best for all involved that the civilians leave the war zone. That ethnic cleansing? I was told in the last page or so that there was no way Israel would make a strong commitment to letting people return after the war and not annexing territory, because it would tie their hands too much. But it would surely help with convincing civilians to evacuate if “not killing civilians” is really a primary aim of theirs. Do you think they’ll make such a commitment? Do you think they should? Realistically, no settler is going to set up shop in territory from Gaza even if they would annex it (it's too dangerous). What they are talking about is a DMZ. And that DMZ will be with Gaza territory, not Israeli, because they don't want to reward Hamas for Oct 7. They have made statements that fleeing residents can return when the war is over. I don't think they'll make more commitments than that though because, despite the rhetoric, it's not clear to me that they will completely destroy Hamas. If not, then they will have to make some kind of bargain to end the war. If they've already unilaterally promised to give everything away, they've thrown away their bargaining chips for nothing. What they probably will (and should) do is say everyone can come back if we get all the hostages back or something. That is, they really are happy giving the land back anyways, but they have to be able to trade something to get their own people back.
So suppose you were a Palestinian, well aware of Israel’s long history of fighting wars, conquering territory, and then refusing to let refugees to return to their land after the war. Now suppose you are told by Israeli officials “uh, yeah, were evacuating one entire half of Gaza. No, we won’t stop bombing you while you evacuate. Yes, we’re also bombing the half you’re evacuating to. Will you get to come back after? Uh… yeah? Yeah! Probably. Well, let’s see how the negotiations go. Don’t worry about it!”
Would you think you were actually going to get your land back? Because it sounds like you’re saying “promising not to steal people’s land is a bargaining chip they want to hold on to,” which is kind of inconsistent with the “minimizing civilian casualties” thing you’re saying they’re doing.
Or to put it a little more bluntly, immediately after a post mocking the idea that Israel is ethnically cleansing refugees, I asked you “so should Israel promise not to ethnically cleanse refugees?” and you essentially responded “Well how about they offer to make that promise somewhere down the line if Hamas (those famously reasonable negotiating partners) agrees to some concessions.” Which, uh, makes it seem like your mocking was full of shit, no?
|
On October 21 2023 04:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:On October 21 2023 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 23:24 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 20 2023 15:54 Oukka wrote:On October 20 2023 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 12:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 11:58 Salazarz wrote:On October 20 2023 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 10:20 Salazarz wrote:
[quote]
No, we would not 'all agree' that it is appropriate, what kind of psycho bullshit assumption is that? They're living in a ghetto ran by radical terror group and cut off from virtually all 'normal' interactions of the modern civilized world, obviously they fucking hate the people who bear at least a significant portion of responsibility for their situation, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to just kill them all.
I'm pretty sure most folks in North Vietnam would kill an American if they had an opportunity to do so, that doesn't make the bombing campaigns and indiscriminate strafing of their villages any less of a disgusting war crime.
When you create an oppressed minority that hates their stronger neighbor, the 'appropriate' response isn't to oppress them even harder until their hate for you reaches a level sufficient to justify straight up exterminating the whole lot, it's to figure out a way to ease the tensions and co-exist with as little violence as possible. When someone is about to kill you, generally people agree it is ethical to defend yourself and/or kill them first. I separated the people who hate Israelis from the people who are actively intending to kill Israelis because you are right to point out that living under Hamas is going to make people think/feel very hatefully, but people shouldn't be killed for being hateful. I think it would only be ethical to kill someone who hates you if you know they were about to kill you. I think you may have misinterpreted my message because I am not equating hate with a guarantee the hate will translate into direct action to kill. In short, hate = no reason to kill. About to kill you = plenty of reason to kill. I agree the ideal path is peaceful coexistence. Since Hamas has clearly stated they intend to repeat their attack and that they want all Jews to be dead, inside and outside of Israel, I think we can confidently say whatever coexisting future they work towards should not include Hamas. And so that is where "of course it makes sense to just kill every soldier and/or military member of Hamas" because there is clearly stated intention to repeat the killings they have already conducted. Hamas is very clear that they are at war with Israel. And so it follows that Israel is also at war with Hamas. So it is entirely reasonable for Hamas soldiers to kill Israeli soldiers and it is reasonable for Israeli soldiers to kill Hamas soldiers. But it is not ok for soldiers to kill non-soldiers of course. That's where this whole conundrum gets difficult. If Hamas soldiers try to play on that dynamic by using residential areas for military purposes, where Israel has the choice between bombing a house or allowing rockets to be launched, the only way Israel is able to avoid killing Palestinian non-combatants is to consciously decide to allow Hamas to just keep launching rockets into Israel forever. Clearly that would be silly, since it would be Israel patting Hamas on the head and saying "I understand you are upset, but I am going to take the high road and allow for non-combatant Israelis to be killed". Is it that you are saying Israel is supposed to take the high road or something? Be the bigger man by allowing more attacks like the recent one to happen every so often? Since Hamas is clear that they intend to kill all Jews, not just the ones in settlements and whatnot, taking the high-road is more so choosing to lose a war and be wiped out. What am I misunderstanding? Is Hamas not intending to kill all Jews? So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people? From my perspective his prescription basically boils down to "voluntarily being ethnically cleansed is better than being forcibly genocided so they should choose the former or suffer the latter". Considering he very recently learned leaving isn't actually a choice available to Palestinians even if they wanted to, it's now essentially "Stand in the empty desert without water or food until you die or you're maybe lucky enough to be allowed to leave your homeland/rubble where your home used to be indefinitely (probably forever)". The whole “nowhere to go” thing is a manufactured problem created by the neighboring nations that view Palestinians as a weapon to use against Israel. They have “nowhere to go” because the nations claiming to be sympathetic prefer Palestinians to remain exactly as they are. And they only need anywhere to go to because Israel is trying to smoke them out in an ethnic cleansing.. By which you mean, Israel already gave them the land, so they're obviously ok if they stay, but Israel has to destroy the terrorists organization Hamas and would rather not kill civilians while doing it. Therefore it's best for all involved that the civilians leave the war zone. That ethnic cleansing? One problem with your reasoning is that Israel objects to Palestinians right to self-defense against Israel's illegal occupation/settlements regardless of whether Hamas exists or not. I think your time frame reference is problematic. It is easy to frame it within recent events, but when you contextualize it within not just what we currently call Israel, but also like 1000 km in each direction away from that, the whole thing is a dumpster fire. GH was correct to point out I was mostly ignorant on this topic, so I did my best to at least somewhat understand it. There was a Reddit comment I saw recently that was basically like "People should look up what Israel was called before it was called Israel". So I did, and wouldn't ya know it, it was called Palestine. Then someone replied to that comment saying they should look up what it was called before Palestine. Just for anyone who is curious and wants to do what I did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_IsraelYou don't need to start from the absolute beginning, but if you do, it is hard not to laugh at how long this train wreck has been almost exactly the same. My conclusion was that it is remarkably dishonest for people who are familiar with the actual history of the situation to frame this as some kind of bully vs victim scenario. They have been trading punches repeatedly for the last trillion years. And it has been mostly the same'ish conflict for the last few hundred. Are any of you familiar with the old movie "Highlander"? When I finished reading that Wikipedia article above, I was immediately reminded of Highlander because its hard to view the situation as anything other than that. "There can be only one" is the belief and motto among the immortals in the original Highlander film, its sequels and spin-offs. It implies that all immortals must fight and kill one another until only one remains standing; this "one" shall receive The Prize. My impression after finally actually reading the whole damn history of this stupid conflict is that it is remarkably dishonest whenever anyone frames the situation as having some kind of "baseline" condition. Because even when you go back and find times when stuff was mostly peaceful, EVERY SINGLE TIME, there was an enormous asterisk. It was never actually settled. Even if things seemed kind of ok or even great, there was some kind of other dynamic that was not being addressed and was slowly boiling over. All of the suggestions people are making today are extra funny after you read through this article because WE TRIED THE SAME THINGS ALREADY LMAO. They literally just fight again later for the same reason. Here are the ACTUAL requirements for a peaceful resolution to Israel vs Palestine: 1) Deeply fundamentalist Jewish scholars agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 2) Deeply fundamentalist Shia and Sunni Muslims agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 3) Israeli military powers agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 4) Israeli private business interests agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 5) Shia and Sunni military powers agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 6) Shia and Sunni private business interests agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 7) Israeli common Joe Shmoe agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 8) Shia and Sunni Joe Shmoe agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues Until all 8 of the above are satisfied, people are just shoving their heads in the sand by pretending some fancy bullshit solution is remotely viable. When people advocate for "reversing settlements" and other similar things, they are not saying they want the conflict to end. They are saying they want Jews to lose. Which is fine because I see no real reason to side with Jews vs Muslims in this conflict. As I have said before, my ideal solution involves both groups being relocated because they have both shown they can't behave themselves with this piece of land. They are too fairy-tale-indulging regarding this specific land and they need to just trade with Arkansas or something. But that's a whole other conversation. Point is, the solutions people like GH and you are proposing have been tried before and it is silly to pretend it would end the conflict. It would just be a better situation for Muslims for the moment. Its not a solution. I think the only sane view on this conflict is to force yourself mentally to not take sides and then view the "good" outcome as the one that causes the least amount of suffering for everyone. Unfortunately, in recent history the best outcomes for Israel has been when they responded to violence with overwhelming relentless force. It's worked from 1948 onwards. Imho the reason why Hamas is releasing US hostages is that they have realised that they caught the car this time and they have no idea how to deal with it. Israel is not going to stop punching and they need the US to step in and stop them before Gaza is a parking lot. I would greatly prefer if there could be some deal ASAP where all hostages are released and the bombs starts dropping. Unfortunately I think we are weeks or months away from the US growing sick of it, if Hamas would even consider it at all.
I agree with this. The big thing is that Jordan, Egypt, Iran, and other nations, are making a conscious effort to use Palestinians as some sort of sub-human attack dog. It is absolutely grotesque the way Hamas and neighboring nations are essentially shoving Palestinian civilians into the boxing ring.
I can certainly think of 1 or 2 extremely recent examples of enormous amounts of refugees being accommodated all around the world, and yet all we ever hear is that Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon have no choice but to close their borders and shove everyone back into the Israel vs Palestine conflict. Imagine if we did that with other nations. Imagine if we told civilians in other countries their civilians needed to hop back into the ring because they are fighting on behalf of some common religious purpose.
We are giving these countries a pass because we are treating them like children. We're all collectively saying "yeah idk, they are weirdly religious about this thing, so what can ya do, right?" when that simply is not sufficient. We can't just shrug and say "ok, it is fine for you and Hamas to encourage civilians to congregate around centers of military conflict because it is a common purpose"
|
On October 21 2023 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 04:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On October 21 2023 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:On October 21 2023 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 23:24 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 20 2023 15:54 Oukka wrote:On October 20 2023 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 12:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 11:58 Salazarz wrote:On October 20 2023 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
When someone is about to kill you, generally people agree it is ethical to defend yourself and/or kill them first. I separated the people who hate Israelis from the people who are actively intending to kill Israelis because you are right to point out that living under Hamas is going to make people think/feel very hatefully, but people shouldn't be killed for being hateful. I think it would only be ethical to kill someone who hates you if you know they were about to kill you. I think you may have misinterpreted my message because I am not equating hate with a guarantee the hate will translate into direct action to kill.
In short, hate = no reason to kill. About to kill you = plenty of reason to kill.
I agree the ideal path is peaceful coexistence. Since Hamas has clearly stated they intend to repeat their attack and that they want all Jews to be dead, inside and outside of Israel, I think we can confidently say whatever coexisting future they work towards should not include Hamas. And so that is where "of course it makes sense to just kill every soldier and/or military member of Hamas" because there is clearly stated intention to repeat the killings they have already conducted.
Hamas is very clear that they are at war with Israel. And so it follows that Israel is also at war with Hamas. So it is entirely reasonable for Hamas soldiers to kill Israeli soldiers and it is reasonable for Israeli soldiers to kill Hamas soldiers. But it is not ok for soldiers to kill non-soldiers of course.
That's where this whole conundrum gets difficult. If Hamas soldiers try to play on that dynamic by using residential areas for military purposes, where Israel has the choice between bombing a house or allowing rockets to be launched, the only way Israel is able to avoid killing Palestinian non-combatants is to consciously decide to allow Hamas to just keep launching rockets into Israel forever. Clearly that would be silly, since it would be Israel patting Hamas on the head and saying "I understand you are upset, but I am going to take the high road and allow for non-combatant Israelis to be killed".
Is it that you are saying Israel is supposed to take the high road or something? Be the bigger man by allowing more attacks like the recent one to happen every so often? Since Hamas is clear that they intend to kill all Jews, not just the ones in settlements and whatnot, taking the high-road is more so choosing to lose a war and be wiped out. What am I misunderstanding? Is Hamas not intending to kill all Jews? So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people? From my perspective his prescription basically boils down to "voluntarily being ethnically cleansed is better than being forcibly genocided so they should choose the former or suffer the latter". Considering he very recently learned leaving isn't actually a choice available to Palestinians even if they wanted to, it's now essentially "Stand in the empty desert without water or food until you die or you're maybe lucky enough to be allowed to leave your homeland/rubble where your home used to be indefinitely (probably forever)". The whole “nowhere to go” thing is a manufactured problem created by the neighboring nations that view Palestinians as a weapon to use against Israel. They have “nowhere to go” because the nations claiming to be sympathetic prefer Palestinians to remain exactly as they are. And they only need anywhere to go to because Israel is trying to smoke them out in an ethnic cleansing.. By which you mean, Israel already gave them the land, so they're obviously ok if they stay, but Israel has to destroy the terrorists organization Hamas and would rather not kill civilians while doing it. Therefore it's best for all involved that the civilians leave the war zone. That ethnic cleansing? One problem with your reasoning is that Israel objects to Palestinians right to self-defense against Israel's illegal occupation/settlements regardless of whether Hamas exists or not. I think your time frame reference is problematic. It is easy to frame it within recent events, but when you contextualize it within not just what we currently call Israel, but also like 1000 km in each direction away from that, the whole thing is a dumpster fire. GH was correct to point out I was mostly ignorant on this topic, so I did my best to at least somewhat understand it. There was a Reddit comment I saw recently that was basically like "People should look up what Israel was called before it was called Israel". So I did, and wouldn't ya know it, it was called Palestine. Then someone replied to that comment saying they should look up what it was called before Palestine. Just for anyone who is curious and wants to do what I did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_IsraelYou don't need to start from the absolute beginning, but if you do, it is hard not to laugh at how long this train wreck has been almost exactly the same. My conclusion was that it is remarkably dishonest for people who are familiar with the actual history of the situation to frame this as some kind of bully vs victim scenario. They have been trading punches repeatedly for the last trillion years. And it has been mostly the same'ish conflict for the last few hundred. Are any of you familiar with the old movie "Highlander"? When I finished reading that Wikipedia article above, I was immediately reminded of Highlander because its hard to view the situation as anything other than that. "There can be only one" is the belief and motto among the immortals in the original Highlander film, its sequels and spin-offs. It implies that all immortals must fight and kill one another until only one remains standing; this "one" shall receive The Prize. My impression after finally actually reading the whole damn history of this stupid conflict is that it is remarkably dishonest whenever anyone frames the situation as having some kind of "baseline" condition. Because even when you go back and find times when stuff was mostly peaceful, EVERY SINGLE TIME, there was an enormous asterisk. It was never actually settled. Even if things seemed kind of ok or even great, there was some kind of other dynamic that was not being addressed and was slowly boiling over. All of the suggestions people are making today are extra funny after you read through this article because WE TRIED THE SAME THINGS ALREADY LMAO. They literally just fight again later for the same reason. Here are the ACTUAL requirements for a peaceful resolution to Israel vs Palestine: 1) Deeply fundamentalist Jewish scholars agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 2) Deeply fundamentalist Shia and Sunni Muslims agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 3) Israeli military powers agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 4) Israeli private business interests agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 5) Shia and Sunni military powers agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 6) Shia and Sunni private business interests agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 7) Israeli common Joe Shmoe agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 8) Shia and Sunni Joe Shmoe agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues Until all 8 of the above are satisfied, people are just shoving their heads in the sand by pretending some fancy bullshit solution is remotely viable. When people advocate for "reversing settlements" and other similar things, they are not saying they want the conflict to end. They are saying they want Jews to lose. Which is fine because I see no real reason to side with Jews vs Muslims in this conflict. As I have said before, my ideal solution involves both groups being relocated because they have both shown they can't behave themselves with this piece of land. They are too fairy-tale-indulging regarding this specific land and they need to just trade with Arkansas or something. But that's a whole other conversation. Point is, the solutions people like GH and you are proposing have been tried before and it is silly to pretend it would end the conflict. It would just be a better situation for Muslims for the moment. Its not a solution. I think the only sane view on this conflict is to force yourself mentally to not take sides and then view the "good" outcome as the one that causes the least amount of suffering for everyone. Unfortunately, in recent history the best outcomes for Israel has been when they responded to violence with overwhelming relentless force. It's worked from 1948 onwards. Imho the reason why Hamas is releasing US hostages is that they have realised that they caught the car this time and they have no idea how to deal with it. Israel is not going to stop punching and they need the US to step in and stop them before Gaza is a parking lot. I would greatly prefer if there could be some deal ASAP where all hostages are released and the bombs starts dropping. Unfortunately I think we are weeks or months away from the US growing sick of it, if Hamas would even consider it at all. I agree with this. The big thing is that Jordan, Egypt, Iran, and other nations, are making a conscious effort to use Palestinians as some sort of sub-human attack dog. It is absolutely grotesque the way Hamas and neighboring nations are essentially shoving Palestinian civilians into the boxing ring. I can certainly think of 1 or 2 extremely recent examples of enormous amounts of refugees being accommodated all around the world, and yet all we ever hear is that Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon have no choice but to close their borders and shove everyone back into the Israel vs Palestine conflict. Imagine if we did that with other nations. Imagine if we told civilians in other countries their civilians needed to hop back into the ring because they are fighting on behalf of some common religious purpose. We are giving these countries a pass because we are treating them like children. We're all collectively saying "yeah idk, they are weirdly religious about this thing, so what can ya do, right?" when that simply is not sufficient. We can't just shrug and say "ok, it is fine for you and Hamas to encourage civilians to congregate around centers of military conflict because it is a common purpose"
Lebanon and Jordan are #1 and #2 in "highest refugee/capita" ratio in the world.
The US could take all Israelis and Palestinians... twice... and would still not reach those ratios of refugees Lebanon and Jordan have already taken...
So wtf are you talking about?
|
On October 21 2023 07:09 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:On October 21 2023 04:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On October 21 2023 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:On October 21 2023 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 23:24 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 20 2023 15:54 Oukka wrote:On October 20 2023 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 12:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 11:58 Salazarz wrote:
[quote]
So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people? From my perspective his prescription basically boils down to "voluntarily being ethnically cleansed is better than being forcibly genocided so they should choose the former or suffer the latter". Considering he very recently learned leaving isn't actually a choice available to Palestinians even if they wanted to, it's now essentially "Stand in the empty desert without water or food until you die or you're maybe lucky enough to be allowed to leave your homeland/rubble where your home used to be indefinitely (probably forever)". The whole “nowhere to go” thing is a manufactured problem created by the neighboring nations that view Palestinians as a weapon to use against Israel. They have “nowhere to go” because the nations claiming to be sympathetic prefer Palestinians to remain exactly as they are. And they only need anywhere to go to because Israel is trying to smoke them out in an ethnic cleansing.. By which you mean, Israel already gave them the land, so they're obviously ok if they stay, but Israel has to destroy the terrorists organization Hamas and would rather not kill civilians while doing it. Therefore it's best for all involved that the civilians leave the war zone. That ethnic cleansing? One problem with your reasoning is that Israel objects to Palestinians right to self-defense against Israel's illegal occupation/settlements regardless of whether Hamas exists or not. I think your time frame reference is problematic. It is easy to frame it within recent events, but when you contextualize it within not just what we currently call Israel, but also like 1000 km in each direction away from that, the whole thing is a dumpster fire. GH was correct to point out I was mostly ignorant on this topic, so I did my best to at least somewhat understand it. There was a Reddit comment I saw recently that was basically like "People should look up what Israel was called before it was called Israel". So I did, and wouldn't ya know it, it was called Palestine. Then someone replied to that comment saying they should look up what it was called before Palestine. Just for anyone who is curious and wants to do what I did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_IsraelYou don't need to start from the absolute beginning, but if you do, it is hard not to laugh at how long this train wreck has been almost exactly the same. My conclusion was that it is remarkably dishonest for people who are familiar with the actual history of the situation to frame this as some kind of bully vs victim scenario. They have been trading punches repeatedly for the last trillion years. And it has been mostly the same'ish conflict for the last few hundred. Are any of you familiar with the old movie "Highlander"? When I finished reading that Wikipedia article above, I was immediately reminded of Highlander because its hard to view the situation as anything other than that. "There can be only one" is the belief and motto among the immortals in the original Highlander film, its sequels and spin-offs. It implies that all immortals must fight and kill one another until only one remains standing; this "one" shall receive The Prize. My impression after finally actually reading the whole damn history of this stupid conflict is that it is remarkably dishonest whenever anyone frames the situation as having some kind of "baseline" condition. Because even when you go back and find times when stuff was mostly peaceful, EVERY SINGLE TIME, there was an enormous asterisk. It was never actually settled. Even if things seemed kind of ok or even great, there was some kind of other dynamic that was not being addressed and was slowly boiling over. All of the suggestions people are making today are extra funny after you read through this article because WE TRIED THE SAME THINGS ALREADY LMAO. They literally just fight again later for the same reason. Here are the ACTUAL requirements for a peaceful resolution to Israel vs Palestine: 1) Deeply fundamentalist Jewish scholars agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 2) Deeply fundamentalist Shia and Sunni Muslims agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 3) Israeli military powers agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 4) Israeli private business interests agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 5) Shia and Sunni military powers agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 6) Shia and Sunni private business interests agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 7) Israeli common Joe Shmoe agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues 8) Shia and Sunni Joe Shmoe agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues Until all 8 of the above are satisfied, people are just shoving their heads in the sand by pretending some fancy bullshit solution is remotely viable. When people advocate for "reversing settlements" and other similar things, they are not saying they want the conflict to end. They are saying they want Jews to lose. Which is fine because I see no real reason to side with Jews vs Muslims in this conflict. As I have said before, my ideal solution involves both groups being relocated because they have both shown they can't behave themselves with this piece of land. They are too fairy-tale-indulging regarding this specific land and they need to just trade with Arkansas or something. But that's a whole other conversation. Point is, the solutions people like GH and you are proposing have been tried before and it is silly to pretend it would end the conflict. It would just be a better situation for Muslims for the moment. Its not a solution. I think the only sane view on this conflict is to force yourself mentally to not take sides and then view the "good" outcome as the one that causes the least amount of suffering for everyone. Unfortunately, in recent history the best outcomes for Israel has been when they responded to violence with overwhelming relentless force. It's worked from 1948 onwards. Imho the reason why Hamas is releasing US hostages is that they have realised that they caught the car this time and they have no idea how to deal with it. Israel is not going to stop punching and they need the US to step in and stop them before Gaza is a parking lot. I would greatly prefer if there could be some deal ASAP where all hostages are released and the bombs starts dropping. Unfortunately I think we are weeks or months away from the US growing sick of it, if Hamas would even consider it at all. I agree with this. The big thing is that Jordan, Egypt, Iran, and other nations, are making a conscious effort to use Palestinians as some sort of sub-human attack dog. It is absolutely grotesque the way Hamas and neighboring nations are essentially shoving Palestinian civilians into the boxing ring. I can certainly think of 1 or 2 extremely recent examples of enormous amounts of refugees being accommodated all around the world, and yet all we ever hear is that Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon have no choice but to close their borders and shove everyone back into the Israel vs Palestine conflict. Imagine if we did that with other nations. Imagine if we told civilians in other countries their civilians needed to hop back into the ring because they are fighting on behalf of some common religious purpose. We are giving these countries a pass because we are treating them like children. We're all collectively saying "yeah idk, they are weirdly religious about this thing, so what can ya do, right?" when that simply is not sufficient. We can't just shrug and say "ok, it is fine for you and Hamas to encourage civilians to congregate around centers of military conflict because it is a common purpose" Lebanon and Jordan are #1 and #2 in "highest refugee/capita" ratio in the world. The US could take all Israelis and Palestinians... twice... and would still not reach those ratios of refugees Lebanon and Jordan have already taken... So wtf are you talking about?
"This is the cause of all causes, the cause of all Arabs," Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said on Thursday. "It is important that the (Palestinian) people remain steadfast and present on their land."
"Hold on to your homes. Hold on to your land," was the message broadcast from mosques in Gaza, as tens of thousands of people headed south. Others vowed to stay. "Death is better than leaving," said Mohammad, 20, outside a bombed Gaza building.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/arab-states-say-palestinians-must-stay-their-land-war-escalates-2023-10-13/
This is not about "do your part". This is about "its creepy and weird to encourage civilians to put themselves in danger for religious reasons"
Soldiers fighting in war is a normal but tragic reality. Civilians being shooed into warzones is not normal.
|
Norway28556 Posts
If you go 70 years back in time, western Europe is arguably the most war-torn area on earth (not from ww2 specifically), with hardly any period of long-lasting peace for the past like.. 2000 years. France and England had a period of 700 years where they're basically at war for half that period.
For the past 40 years, conflicts between Israel and the Arab world have resulted in something like.. 20k? dead total on both sides? Obviously that's not ideal, but it really doesn't rank very highly on worldly conflicts. In Rwanda we saw nearly a million dead in 100 days. While that situation might not qualify as 100% resolved, it's reasonably peaceful (and not because one group was 'eliminated'). The Kashmir conflict has taken more lives the past 40 years, too. Civil war in Yemen has resulted in a few hundred thousand dead in 10 years. Syria has that one beat as well.
I don't know if any peace is ever eternal, maybe Norway and Sweden will start fighting again in the future, but there's no reason to think that this particular conflict is uniquely poised to never end, and it should certainly be possible to create periods of lasting peace. Imo, the thing that separates this conflict from others in a way that makes it deserving of our attention is just how abhorrent the living conditions are for people inhabiting the Gaza strip compared to the people living right next to them. (This, imo, is quite different from 'both sides are starving to death'). Alleviating that should be the main focus, not trying to find a 'final solution' to the problem.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 21 2023 07:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you go 70 years back in time, western Europe is arguably the most war-torn area on earth (not from ww2 specifically), with hardly any period of long-lasting peace for the past like.. 2000 years. France and England had a period of 700 years where they're basically at war for half that period.
For the past 40 years, conflicts between Israel and the Arab world have resulted in something like.. 20k? dead total on both sides? Obviously that's not ideal, but it really doesn't rank very highly on worldly conflicts. In Rwanda we saw nearly a million dead in 100 days. While that situation might not qualify as 100% resolved, it's reasonably peaceful (and not because one group was 'eliminated'). The Kashmir conflict has taken more lives the past 40 years, too. Civil war in Yemen has resulted in a few hundred thousand dead in 10 years. Syria has that one beat as well.
I don't know if any peace is ever eternal, maybe Norway and Sweden will start fighting again in the future, but there's no reason to think that this particular conflict is uniquely poised to never end, and it should certainly be possible to create periods of lasting peace. Imo, the thing that separates this conflict from others in a way that makes it deserving of our attention is just how abhorrent the living conditions are for people inhabiting the Gaza strip compared to the people living right next to them. (This, imo, is quite different from 'both sides are starving to death'). Alleviating that should be the main focus, not trying to find a 'final solution' to the problem.
So what you are saying is that Israel has been too soft? Because the price of wars taking a break in Europe was really, really steep. Meanwhile IvP conflict can't even compete with other Middle East brawls, apparently.
As for abhorrent living condition of Gaza, i only have 1 question: where did Gaza's GDP go? I know for sure that it has high enough GDP per capita for fairly acceptable living conditions if it wanted to. Not great, of course, but comparable with something like Armenia is not something outlandish simply on the back of $$$ that go into Gaza.
Now, i admit my bias, having a couple of cars explode near my school back in my childhood is not exactly a pleasant event (neither was watching Beslan unfold a few kilometers away from me), and as such i am very quick to dislike anyone showing even the mildest sympathy to terrorists, and most of Gaza unfortunately is that.
|
On October 21 2023 09:16 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 07:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you go 70 years back in time, western Europe is arguably the most war-torn area on earth (not from ww2 specifically), with hardly any period of long-lasting peace for the past like.. 2000 years. France and England had a period of 700 years where they're basically at war for half that period.
For the past 40 years, conflicts between Israel and the Arab world have resulted in something like.. 20k? dead total on both sides? Obviously that's not ideal, but it really doesn't rank very highly on worldly conflicts. In Rwanda we saw nearly a million dead in 100 days. While that situation might not qualify as 100% resolved, it's reasonably peaceful (and not because one group was 'eliminated'). The Kashmir conflict has taken more lives the past 40 years, too. Civil war in Yemen has resulted in a few hundred thousand dead in 10 years. Syria has that one beat as well.
I don't know if any peace is ever eternal, maybe Norway and Sweden will start fighting again in the future, but there's no reason to think that this particular conflict is uniquely poised to never end, and it should certainly be possible to create periods of lasting peace. Imo, the thing that separates this conflict from others in a way that makes it deserving of our attention is just how abhorrent the living conditions are for people inhabiting the Gaza strip compared to the people living right next to them. (This, imo, is quite different from 'both sides are starving to death'). Alleviating that should be the main focus, not trying to find a 'final solution' to the problem. Now, i admit my bias, having a couple of cars explode near my school back in my childhood is not exactly a pleasant event (neither was watching Beslan unfold a few kilometers away from me), and as such i am very quick to dislike anyone showing even the mildest sympathy to terrorists, and most of Gaza unfortunately is that.
Just imagine the bomb was dropped from a plane instead of hidden in a car and that should get rid of that bias
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 21 2023 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 09:16 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 21 2023 07:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you go 70 years back in time, western Europe is arguably the most war-torn area on earth (not from ww2 specifically), with hardly any period of long-lasting peace for the past like.. 2000 years. France and England had a period of 700 years where they're basically at war for half that period.
For the past 40 years, conflicts between Israel and the Arab world have resulted in something like.. 20k? dead total on both sides? Obviously that's not ideal, but it really doesn't rank very highly on worldly conflicts. In Rwanda we saw nearly a million dead in 100 days. While that situation might not qualify as 100% resolved, it's reasonably peaceful (and not because one group was 'eliminated'). The Kashmir conflict has taken more lives the past 40 years, too. Civil war in Yemen has resulted in a few hundred thousand dead in 10 years. Syria has that one beat as well.
I don't know if any peace is ever eternal, maybe Norway and Sweden will start fighting again in the future, but there's no reason to think that this particular conflict is uniquely poised to never end, and it should certainly be possible to create periods of lasting peace. Imo, the thing that separates this conflict from others in a way that makes it deserving of our attention is just how abhorrent the living conditions are for people inhabiting the Gaza strip compared to the people living right next to them. (This, imo, is quite different from 'both sides are starving to death'). Alleviating that should be the main focus, not trying to find a 'final solution' to the problem. Now, i admit my bias, having a couple of cars explode near my school back in my childhood is not exactly a pleasant event (neither was watching Beslan unfold a few kilometers away from me), and as such i am very quick to dislike anyone showing even the mildest sympathy to terrorists, and most of Gaza unfortunately is that. Just imagine the bomb was dropped from a plane instead of hidden in a car and that should get rid of that bias
It's a cute strawman, but unfortunately we are talking Israel here, not Russia. By all accounts we know, Israel actually held up their bargain of "fuck around and find out" -- not fabricating "fuck around" part (you can make an extensive argument over how much impact did decisions of Israel government had in nurturing Hamas, because they did, but ultimately, fucking around was decision of Hamas, not Israel). Heck, it goes all the way back to when Israel first appeared on political map of the modern world.
|
On October 21 2023 00:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 22:03 Salazarz wrote:On October 20 2023 12:20 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 11:58 Salazarz wrote:On October 20 2023 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 10:20 Salazarz wrote:If we assume 100% of all houses bombed were occupied by people who intended to kill an Israeli the next day, we would all agree it is entirely appropriate to bomb those houses. No, we would not 'all agree' that it is appropriate, what kind of psycho bullshit assumption is that? They're living in a ghetto ran by radical terror group and cut off from virtually all 'normal' interactions of the modern civilized world, obviously they fucking hate the people who bear at least a significant portion of responsibility for their situation, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to just kill them all. I'm pretty sure most folks in North Vietnam would kill an American if they had an opportunity to do so, that doesn't make the bombing campaigns and indiscriminate strafing of their villages any less of a disgusting war crime. When you create an oppressed minority that hates their stronger neighbor, the 'appropriate' response isn't to oppress them even harder until their hate for you reaches a level sufficient to justify straight up exterminating the whole lot, it's to figure out a way to ease the tensions and co-exist with as little violence as possible. When someone is about to kill you, generally people agree it is ethical to defend yourself and/or kill them first. I separated the people who hate Israelis from the people who are actively intending to kill Israelis because you are right to point out that living under Hamas is going to make people think/feel very hatefully, but people shouldn't be killed for being hateful. I think it would only be ethical to kill someone who hates you if you know they were about to kill you. I think you may have misinterpreted my message because I am not equating hate with a guarantee the hate will translate into direct action to kill. In short, hate = no reason to kill. About to kill you = plenty of reason to kill. I agree the ideal path is peaceful coexistence. Since Hamas has clearly stated they intend to repeat their attack and that they want all Jews to be dead, inside and outside of Israel, I think we can confidently say whatever coexisting future they work towards should not include Hamas. And so that is where "of course it makes sense to just kill every soldier and/or military member of Hamas" because there is clearly stated intention to repeat the killings they have already conducted. Hamas is very clear that they are at war with Israel. And so it follows that Israel is also at war with Hamas. So it is entirely reasonable for Hamas soldiers to kill Israeli soldiers and it is reasonable for Israeli soldiers to kill Hamas soldiers. But it is not ok for soldiers to kill non-soldiers of course. That's where this whole conundrum gets difficult. If Hamas soldiers try to play on that dynamic by using residential areas for military purposes, where Israel has the choice between bombing a house or allowing rockets to be launched, the only way Israel is able to avoid killing Palestinian non-combatants is to consciously decide to allow Hamas to just keep launching rockets into Israel forever. Clearly that would be silly, since it would be Israel patting Hamas on the head and saying "I understand you are upset, but I am going to take the high road and allow for non-combatant Israelis to be killed". Is it that you are saying Israel is supposed to take the high road or something? Be the bigger man by allowing more attacks like the recent one to happen every so often? Since Hamas is clear that they intend to kill all Jews, not just the ones in settlements and whatnot, taking the high-road is more so choosing to lose a war and be wiped out. What am I misunderstanding? Is Hamas not intending to kill all Jews? So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people? Are you considering Palestine and Hamas as the same thing? I think for this discussion, it is important to separate the 2. But here is what I think each group, treated as 2 separate entities ought to do: 1) Palestinians should do everything they can to put as much distance between themselves and Hamas soldiers so that they are not caught in the cross-fire of Israel soldiers vs Hamas soldiers. Israel will bomb places they think have Hamas weapons. Hamas weapons are not perfect and sometimes fail. In both cases, it is better for a Palestinian to be very far away from both Israeli and Hamas soldiers 2) Hamas soldiers should relinquish their weapons and surrender. Hamas has already lost their war against Israel, as evidenced by the expanding colonies refer to. If the goal of Hamas is to make Israel have less land and Palestine have more land, they have failed with flying colors. Hamas is ineffective as a military organization and has lost land continuously. They have no path to victory and they are only harming the people they claim to fight for. May I ask how you would answer your question? What should each of the 2 groups do? 2. Throughout history, lots of 'terrorist' groups that were vastly outgunned by occupying forces have managed to achieve at least some of their objectives in ways not too dissimilar from what Hamas is doing. Probably the closest example would be the IRA in Ireland. Are you disputing whether or not Hamas is a terrorist group? Are you familiar with the videos they posted from their recent attack? They themselves glorified some extremely heinous stuff. You seem like you've been tiptoeing around the idea that you view Hamas in a positive light, but these little quotes around the word terrorist are making it seem like you may actually sympathize with them. Do you view Hamas in a positive light?
What the hell, man? You directly replied to my post referring to the Gaza strip as 'a ghetto ran by radical terror group' like a day ago or something. My earlier posts include things like 'Hamas are disgusting terrorists and the attack they carried out was an atrocity,' 'Hamas are disgusting murderers <...> would find it far more difficult to amass support for their vile cause.' 'What Israel should do is infiltrate Hamas, find their leaders -- not the low rank grunts on the ground but the actual big boys procuring funding and making decisions -- and take them out. While at it, maybe start going after folks who cooperate with said Hamas leaders, too.' (that last one was a direct reply to your post). But yeah, clearly I think Hamas are great guys and I view them in a positive light and hope for their ultimate success of exterminating every single Jew because I said that bombing a place over and over isn't likely to make it any less radical and that radical extremism often achieves at least some of its goals despite being massively outgunned. + Show Spoiler +The part about me thinking Hamas are great guys was sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious enough to you.
Here are the ACTUAL requirements for a peaceful resolution to Israel vs Palestine:
1) Deeply fundamentalist Jewish scholars agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
2) Deeply fundamentalist Shia and Sunni Muslims agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
3) Israeli military powers agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
4) Israeli private business interests agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
5) Shia and Sunni military powers agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
6) Shia and Sunni private business interests agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
7) Israeli common Joe Shmoe agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
8) Shia and Sunni Joe Shmoe agree the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues
Until all 8 of the above are satisfied, people are just shoving their heads in the sand by pretending some fancy bullshit solution is remotely viable.
That is simply untrue. There hasn't a single conflict in history which ended with every side being perfectly satisfied and thinking that the proposed solution is entirely fantastic and has no issues. There is always at least a modicum compromise, dissatisfaction, and push back -- otherwise there wouldn't be a conflict in the first place. The only real requirement is for both sides to be put in a position where continuation (and especially escalation) of violence is no longer seen as a potentially 'winning' move. For Palestine (and Hamas / Gaza strip in particular), that would mean being placed in a situation where terror attacks on Israel have meaningful consequences; as it stands right now, a large portion of them do not see death as 'meaningful consequence' because their lives are so fucking shit; change that and you change the script. For Israel, that would mean real consequences for encroaching further and further into land that supposedly belongs to Palestine, real consequences for murdering journalists and aid workers and yes, even nameless Palestinian civilians.
The way things are right now, neither side is particularly interested in ending the conflict because they see opportunity to strengthen their position by prolonging it. Take that away, and you'll have at least some semblance of peace, that can then be built upon further.
When people advocate for "reversing settlements" and other similar things, they are not saying they want the conflict to end. They are saying they want Jews to lose.
When people advocate for "reversing settlements", they are not saying they want Jews to lose. They are saying they want Jews to adhere to the rulings made by the UN and stop being disgusting colonists. It really doesn't matter whether the person saying these things actually secretly wants to see Jews lose or not. It's like saying, people who advocate for Russia to stop attacking Ukraine they're actually saying they want Russia to lose; like, the ulterior motive here is really irrelevant, what matters is that there are clearly wrong actions being carried out that needed to stop a long damn time ago.
@lolfail9001: the whole 'fuck around and find out' is a ridiculous notion when applied to world politics. If every nation that ever 'fucked around' was made to 'find out', Earth would be left to cockroaches long time ago.
|
On October 21 2023 11:12 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On October 21 2023 09:16 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 21 2023 07:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you go 70 years back in time, western Europe is arguably the most war-torn area on earth (not from ww2 specifically), with hardly any period of long-lasting peace for the past like.. 2000 years. France and England had a period of 700 years where they're basically at war for half that period.
For the past 40 years, conflicts between Israel and the Arab world have resulted in something like.. 20k? dead total on both sides? Obviously that's not ideal, but it really doesn't rank very highly on worldly conflicts. In Rwanda we saw nearly a million dead in 100 days. While that situation might not qualify as 100% resolved, it's reasonably peaceful (and not because one group was 'eliminated'). The Kashmir conflict has taken more lives the past 40 years, too. Civil war in Yemen has resulted in a few hundred thousand dead in 10 years. Syria has that one beat as well.
I don't know if any peace is ever eternal, maybe Norway and Sweden will start fighting again in the future, but there's no reason to think that this particular conflict is uniquely poised to never end, and it should certainly be possible to create periods of lasting peace. Imo, the thing that separates this conflict from others in a way that makes it deserving of our attention is just how abhorrent the living conditions are for people inhabiting the Gaza strip compared to the people living right next to them. (This, imo, is quite different from 'both sides are starving to death'). Alleviating that should be the main focus, not trying to find a 'final solution' to the problem. Now, i admit my bias, having a couple of cars explode near my school back in my childhood is not exactly a pleasant event (neither was watching Beslan unfold a few kilometers away from me), and as such i am very quick to dislike anyone showing even the mildest sympathy to terrorists, and most of Gaza unfortunately is that. Just imagine the bomb was dropped from a plane instead of hidden in a car and that should get rid of that bias It's a cute strawman, but unfortunately we are talking Israel here, not Russia. By all accounts we know, Israel actually held up their bargain of "fuck around and find out" -- not fabricating "fuck around" part (you can make an extensive argument over how much impact did decisions of Israel government had in nurturing Hamas, because they did, but ultimately, fucking around was decision of Hamas, not Israel). Heck, it goes all the way back to when Israel first appeared on political map of the modern world.
Not sure how that would be a strawman but if you want a more explicit version of what I wanted to say, I do not believe your lack of sympathy for people being buried under appartment ruins or being denied basic human rights when someone in the same city or country 'fucked around and found out' is related to your experiences with terrorism. You're missing a few key steps in the logical process there.
Although I must probably mention my own experiences there, I have lived a boring life in which nothing ever happened in a generally conservative place where people love to explain why their reactionary positions are super justified, and that has caused me to have a negative bias against people who use their life story to poorly justify their beliefs.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 21 2023 18:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 11:12 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 21 2023 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On October 21 2023 09:16 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 21 2023 07:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you go 70 years back in time, western Europe is arguably the most war-torn area on earth (not from ww2 specifically), with hardly any period of long-lasting peace for the past like.. 2000 years. France and England had a period of 700 years where they're basically at war for half that period.
For the past 40 years, conflicts between Israel and the Arab world have resulted in something like.. 20k? dead total on both sides? Obviously that's not ideal, but it really doesn't rank very highly on worldly conflicts. In Rwanda we saw nearly a million dead in 100 days. While that situation might not qualify as 100% resolved, it's reasonably peaceful (and not because one group was 'eliminated'). The Kashmir conflict has taken more lives the past 40 years, too. Civil war in Yemen has resulted in a few hundred thousand dead in 10 years. Syria has that one beat as well.
I don't know if any peace is ever eternal, maybe Norway and Sweden will start fighting again in the future, but there's no reason to think that this particular conflict is uniquely poised to never end, and it should certainly be possible to create periods of lasting peace. Imo, the thing that separates this conflict from others in a way that makes it deserving of our attention is just how abhorrent the living conditions are for people inhabiting the Gaza strip compared to the people living right next to them. (This, imo, is quite different from 'both sides are starving to death'). Alleviating that should be the main focus, not trying to find a 'final solution' to the problem. Now, i admit my bias, having a couple of cars explode near my school back in my childhood is not exactly a pleasant event (neither was watching Beslan unfold a few kilometers away from me), and as such i am very quick to dislike anyone showing even the mildest sympathy to terrorists, and most of Gaza unfortunately is that. Just imagine the bomb was dropped from a plane instead of hidden in a car and that should get rid of that bias It's a cute strawman, but unfortunately we are talking Israel here, not Russia. By all accounts we know, Israel actually held up their bargain of "fuck around and find out" -- not fabricating "fuck around" part (you can make an extensive argument over how much impact did decisions of Israel government had in nurturing Hamas, because they did, but ultimately, fucking around was decision of Hamas, not Israel). Heck, it goes all the way back to when Israel first appeared on political map of the modern world. Not sure how that would be a strawman but if you want a more explicit version of what I wanted to say, I do not believe your lack of sympathy for people being buried under appartment ruins or being denied basic human rights when someone in the same city or country 'fucked around and found out' is related to your experiences with terrorism. You're missing a few key steps in the logical process there. Although I must probably mention my own experiences there, I have lived a boring life in which nothing ever happened in a generally conservative place where people love to explain why their reactionary positions are super justified, and that has caused me to have a negative bias against people who use their life story to poorly justify their beliefs.
No, the part you are missing is the "unfortunately, Gaza populace by all accounts we know has overwhelming support for said terrorists". And had it even before most of Gaza's current population was born. That's the moment when I consider roof knocking and leaflet requests to run away the sufficient humanism on Israel's part. As for basic human rights, you'd better ask government of Gaza on that account, they are the enforcer of those, not Israel, since 2005.
As for your bias, that makes it all the more interesting that you claim that you would turn Israel into Jewish Reich (to compress your position and mentions of fascism and genocide in regards to Israel into 2 words) if you were in Bibi's place. Clearly, your disdain for reactionary positions does not prevent you from having a reactionary position so extreme Bibi's party is afraid of expressing it (even if i suspect some folks there do in fact have it).
|
On October 21 2023 19:49 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 18:27 Nebuchad wrote:On October 21 2023 11:12 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 21 2023 09:30 Nebuchad wrote:On October 21 2023 09:16 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 21 2023 07:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If you go 70 years back in time, western Europe is arguably the most war-torn area on earth (not from ww2 specifically), with hardly any period of long-lasting peace for the past like.. 2000 years. France and England had a period of 700 years where they're basically at war for half that period.
For the past 40 years, conflicts between Israel and the Arab world have resulted in something like.. 20k? dead total on both sides? Obviously that's not ideal, but it really doesn't rank very highly on worldly conflicts. In Rwanda we saw nearly a million dead in 100 days. While that situation might not qualify as 100% resolved, it's reasonably peaceful (and not because one group was 'eliminated'). The Kashmir conflict has taken more lives the past 40 years, too. Civil war in Yemen has resulted in a few hundred thousand dead in 10 years. Syria has that one beat as well.
I don't know if any peace is ever eternal, maybe Norway and Sweden will start fighting again in the future, but there's no reason to think that this particular conflict is uniquely poised to never end, and it should certainly be possible to create periods of lasting peace. Imo, the thing that separates this conflict from others in a way that makes it deserving of our attention is just how abhorrent the living conditions are for people inhabiting the Gaza strip compared to the people living right next to them. (This, imo, is quite different from 'both sides are starving to death'). Alleviating that should be the main focus, not trying to find a 'final solution' to the problem. Now, i admit my bias, having a couple of cars explode near my school back in my childhood is not exactly a pleasant event (neither was watching Beslan unfold a few kilometers away from me), and as such i am very quick to dislike anyone showing even the mildest sympathy to terrorists, and most of Gaza unfortunately is that. Just imagine the bomb was dropped from a plane instead of hidden in a car and that should get rid of that bias It's a cute strawman, but unfortunately we are talking Israel here, not Russia. By all accounts we know, Israel actually held up their bargain of "fuck around and find out" -- not fabricating "fuck around" part (you can make an extensive argument over how much impact did decisions of Israel government had in nurturing Hamas, because they did, but ultimately, fucking around was decision of Hamas, not Israel). Heck, it goes all the way back to when Israel first appeared on political map of the modern world. Not sure how that would be a strawman but if you want a more explicit version of what I wanted to say, I do not believe your lack of sympathy for people being buried under appartment ruins or being denied basic human rights when someone in the same city or country 'fucked around and found out' is related to your experiences with terrorism. You're missing a few key steps in the logical process there. Although I must probably mention my own experiences there, I have lived a boring life in which nothing ever happened in a generally conservative place where people love to explain why their reactionary positions are super justified, and that has caused me to have a negative bias against people who use their life story to poorly justify their beliefs. No, the part you are missing is the "unfortunately, Gaza populace by all accounts we know has overwhelming support for said terrorists". And had it even before most of Gaza's current population was born. That's the moment when I consider roof knocking and leaflet requests to run away the sufficient humanism on Israel's part. As for basic human rights, you'd better ask government of Gaza on that account, they are the enforcer of those, not Israel, since 2005. As for your bias, that makes it all the more interesting that you claim that you would turn Israel into Jewish Reich if you were in Bibi's place. Clearly, your disdain for reactionary positions does not prevent you from having a reactionary position so extreme Bibi's party is afraid of expressing it (even if i suspect some folks there do in fact have it).
42% of Gaza's population are under 14 years old.
Out of the adults, about 30% of them supporters of Hamas.
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah
In fact, Gazan frustration with Hamas governance is clear; most Gazans expressed a preference for PA administration and security officials over Hamas—the majority of Gazans (70%) supported a proposal of the PA sending “officials and security officers to Gaza to take over the administration there, with Hamas giving up separate armed units,”
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
