|
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. |
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 21 2023 19:53 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 19:49 lolfail9001 wrote: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-hezbollahShow nested quote +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,”
Thanks for re-affirming, with this poll, that most of Gaza's adults do in fact sympathise with terrorists. I am glad this poll shows that most of them would rather mind their business, but when for every adult who says "Nope, we should go to war" there are only 2 adult people thinking otherwise, that's not a recipe for peace.
Also, not including teenagers in place where they make as significant part of population as they do in Gaza, kinda devalues such polls as representation of proper public opinion, even if I can't blame said teenagers for growing up in militaristic propaganda from childhood.
|
On October 21 2023 20:08 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 19:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 21 2023 19:49 lolfail9001 wrote: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-hezbollahIn 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,” Thanks for re-affirming, with this poll, that most of Gaza's adults do in fact sympathise with terrorists. I am glad this poll shows that most of them would rather mind their business, but when for every adult who says "Nope, we should go to war" there are only 2 adult people thinking otherwise, that's not a recipe for peace. Also, not including teenagers in place where they make as significant part of population as they do in Gaza, kinda devalues such polls as representation of proper public opinion, even if I can't blame said teenagers for growing up in militaristic propaganda from childhood.
I'm not really seeing the 'overwhelming support' of the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks (Hamas + Hezollah mostly), but feel free to claim it as a victory if you'd like.
|
Is this where we are supposed to be shocked that children, and children of children who have lived their under lives under oppression might have a warped world view?
People in Gaza somewhat, but not really, support Hamas is not the gotya you think it is. What other choice do they have?
|
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.
Yes, you believe that collective punishment is okay when it comes to certain groups of people, and you believe it's abhorrent when it comes to other groups of people.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 21 2023 20:37 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 19:49 lolfail9001 wrote: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. Yes, you believe that collective punishment is okay when it comes to certain groups of people, and you believe it's abhorrent when it comes to other groups of people.
I believe that collective responsibility is inevitable for actions of someone who legitimately represents the collective (and even though Hamas are clear usurpers who treat civilians as human shields at best, the "Kill da Jews" voting block in Gaza is strong enough to consider Hamas and Co legitimate representatives, just look at the poll posted above, or the fact that last elections in Palestine were held nearly 2 decades ago). I don't think it's particularly humane to suffer for things you could not have any impact on, but world does not run on humanism at large and it definitely cares little for what i consider humane.
And for the record, my country of origin is right there and my position on said collective responsibility is consistent: i will end up paying the price for actions of Putin with booming approval of Russian boomers nostalgic for The Empire. I couldn't have any impact on those, but that's my fate. And Israel pays the price for it's actions in form of this perpetual war, even if one can get into extensive zionist dispute whether the price was appropriate.
|
Aid has started to enter into Gaza via the Egyptian border.
|
On October 22 2023 00:15 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 20:37 Nebuchad wrote:On October 21 2023 19:49 lolfail9001 wrote: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. Yes, you believe that collective punishment is okay when it comes to certain groups of people, and you believe it's abhorrent when it comes to other groups of people. I believe that collective responsibility is inevitable for actions of someone who legitimately represents the collective (and even though Hamas are clear usurpers who treat civilians as human shields at best, the "Kill da Jews" voting block in Gaza is strong enough to consider Hamas and Co legitimate representatives, just look at the poll posted above, or the fact that last elections in Palestine were held nearly 2 decades ago). I don't think it's particularly humane to suffer for things you could not have any impact on, but world does not run on humanism at large and it definitely cares little for what i consider humane. And for the record, my country of origin is right there and my position on said collective responsibility is consistent: i will end up paying the price for actions of Putin with booming approval of Russian boomers nostalgic for The Empire. I couldn't have any impact on those, but that's my fate. And Israel pays the price for it's actions in form of this perpetual war, even if one can get into extensive zionist dispute whether the price was appropriate.
What did you mean by 'inevitable' because I was going to start the post by saying that it's clearly not inevitable but presumably you know that as well and you meant something slightly different
I have seen similar reasonings to yours applied to the defense of Hamas' terrorism: Israeli Jews largely support annexation of Palestine, and they elect the fascist governments that they have, so they have a collective responsibility for the occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine. How would you react to someone saying this?
|
On October 21 2023 05:26 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 00:52 Cerebrate1 wrote: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:
[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? 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?
You are pointing out that many Palestinians will not believe Israel that they can return to their homes after the war. That's a fair assessment, and probably why Israel sweetened the pot by providing water exclusively to South Gaza.
But Palestinians belief that there will be ethnic cleansing does not mean that Israel actually intends to do ethnic cleansing.
Israel's concern for getting back their own hundreds of hostages is of higher priority to them than convincing Palestinians who would rather hang out in a war zone than believe Israel (especially since most those people won't believe them regardless what they say anyways).
If it makes you feel any better, they probably have made some sort of promise like that in back channels to players that matter, like the US or Egypt. But making such a thing public risks not getting their people back for very little gain.
|
On October 21 2023 04:47 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[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. 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.
What do you mean "after the conflict"? Like after Israel has taken all of Gaza and the West Bank?
|
There has been some discussion about Israel "collectively punishing" and their ability to deescalate. I just want to share some context that may clarify both topics.
The media has a tendency to take out their magnifying glass for this conflict and zoom in on just Israel and Palestine. With that view, Israel is a big fish and Palestine is a small fish. Israel can do whatever it wants.
But zoom that view just a little further back just a little bit, and you'll see that Israel is in the Middle East and surrounded by potential enemies. If you didn't read my geopolitics post earlier, the jist is that every country in the region either would like to attack Israel or has a large portion of their population who would like to attack Israel. Israel is still a relatively big fish, but it's also surrounded by piranhas. Israel is perpetually one or two bad news stories away from being attacked on all sides and possibly wiped off the map. And if Oct 7 is any indication, there would be no need for changing of definitions to show that what would be done to the Jews would be absolute genocide.
Every foreign policy decision that Israel makes, takes into account this looming existential crisis.
One of the most important backbones of their defense is deterrence. Time and again, Israel has shown that anyone who attacks them will receive serious backlash. If you think it's not effective, you should note how hesitant their enemies are to commit to attacking them right now. Syria has technically been at war with Israel for decades, but it's all quiet on that front. Even Hezbollah is restraining itself to taking a few potshots right now because it fears getting the brunt of Israel's retaliation. Heck, even Gaza holds their barrages back to only launch on rare occasions because it knows there will be hell to pay when it does.
If Israel were to deescalate after an enemy raped and murdered 1,600+ civilians and ran off with 200+ more that are being tortured and raped to this day... they would be signaling that they are no longer willing or able to fight back. And if they didn't retaliate for 1,600+, certainly they won't retaliate if Hezbollah sneaks in and rapes and murders just a dozen people. And not if they do another dozen a few weeks later.
And the next time there is a big war, there is no reason for Jordan to stop all their rioters from crossing the border like they did this time, cus Jordan won't be hit anyways. And if the Jordanian rioters go, that inspires the Syrian militias to follow. And then all the dominoes fall in a really terrible way.
Conversely, you should know that Israel will never commit genocide for a similar calculus. Regional Arab leaders can keep their populations in check if Israel just kills some terrorists, but if Palestinians were to start dying in the millions, the frothing rage would boil over and Israel would be invaded by the whole Middle East regardless of deterrence. Even the antisemites don't claim the Jews are unintelligent, and that move would be suicidally stupid.
If Israel and Palestine were on an island by themselves somewhere, I think this conflict would have been resolved peacefully ages ago, but both Israel and Palestine are viewing the conflict from the lens of Palestine always potentially having a lot more cards in it's hand.
So to wrap around to my opening point, I don't think de-escalation is possible for Israel at this point. At least until they have killed enough of Hamas to establish deterrence. And none of what I have written has anything to do with "collective punishment," or at least not any desire for vengeance within that phrase. It is a calculated decision to stop future bad actors from piling on.
Incidentally, this concern of being ganked is probably why Israel has taken so long to send troops into Gaza. The troops are waiting in defensive positions lest all Israel's neighbors all invade. They won't send them in until they determine that that risk is minimal.
|
On October 21 2023 16:12 Salazarz wrote: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.
I apologize for mischaracterizing your views. I misunderstood you. My impression was that you did not support military efforts towards removing Hamas from power in Gaza.
On October 21 2023 16:12 Salazarz wrote:
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.
If death was not meaningful, there would be no reason for:
"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.
"Death is better than leaving" is not the same cliche we are used to hearing within the military, where death on the battlefield is better than retreating or surrendering or whatever. This is being applied to civilians. It is very abnormal to apply this kind of logic to civilians and it creates a deeply deceiving situation.
This situation is very clearly deeply religiously motivated. A bunch of kids growing up under Hamas leadership during a war is of course going to screw them up, but it feels like you aren't recognizing the fact that this is a religious conflict that has taken various forms for hundreds of years. It isn't that everything was totally fine until 1948. I linked a Wikipedia article describing the full history of conflict pertaining to this land earlier in the thread and its a depressing read if you feel like having a shitty night lol.
I also think it is dishonest to frame it as being colonialism. Colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and all these various other terms people use to describe this conflict are all dishonest because they imply this isn't all an extension of the same conflict that's been going on for an amazingly long time. This isn't some new thing from 1948. The situation has the appearance of being some kinda bully situation because one side is so brainwashed that they do not value their own lives. They essentially end up gaslighting the world by operating on an entirely different perspective regarding their own lives. Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Hamas all openly indicate it is better for civilians to die rather than leave their land due to religious considerations. It is not a reasonable perspective.
|
On October 22 2023 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 04:47 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 21 2023 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[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. 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. What do you mean "after the conflict"? Like after Israel has taken all of Gaza and the West Bank?
I don't know if Israel clarified precisely what "after the conflict" means. It seems like Israel, the US, and Egypt are frantically brainstorming/negotiating how this can be resolved without it just happening again in a few years. Will they give Gaza to the PA? Create a new multinational government in Gaza with Arabs from other countries? I don't know.
But realistically, the conflict ends in one of two ways:
1. Israel eliminates Hamas as the governing body of Gaza. This is the better long term ending because they can then implement one of those solutions above (or something else better) and at least hope for a more peaceful productive trajectory for Israel and Palestine. If this happens, everyone goes back to live under the new government in Gaza.
2. Thousands die on both sides, but Hamas is not eliminated and Israel loses the will/ability to finish the fight. Then the resolution will require a deal between Hamas and Israel where both sides are able to sell the result as a "win" to their people. It would likely involve trading all the land Israel took over in Gaza in the interim and freeing thousands of terrorists from Israeli prisons in exchange for the 200+ hostages that Hamas has.
Either way, all the Gazans go back to their land in the end.
|
On October 22 2023 14:49 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2023 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2023 04:47 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 21 2023 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What do you mean "after the conflict"? Like after Israel has taken all of Gaza and the West Bank? I don't know if Israel clarified precisely what "after the conflict" means.
That's a bigger problem than you seem to realize.
+ Show Spoiler +
It seems like Israel, the US, and Egypt are frantically brainstorming/negotiating how this can be resolved without it just happening again in a few years. Will they give Gaza to the PA? Create a new multinational government in Gaza with Arabs from other countries? I don't know.
But realistically, the conflict ends in one of two ways:
1. Israel eliminates Hamas as the governing body of Gaza. This is the better long term ending because they can then implement one of those solutions above (or something else better) and at least hope for a more peaceful productive trajectory for Israel and Palestine. If this happens, everyone goes back to live under the new government in Gaza.
2. Thousands die on both sides, but Hamas is not eliminated and Israel loses the will/ability to finish the fight. Then the resolution will require a deal between Hamas and Israel where both sides are able to sell the result as a "win" to their people. It would likely involve trading all the land Israel took over in Gaza in the interim and freeing thousands of terrorists from Israeli prisons in exchange for the 200+ hostages that Hamas has.
Either way, all the Gazans go back to their land in the end.
I must misunderstand what you mean by Israel turning at least some of Gaza into a DMZ?
EDIT: It would likely involve trading all the land Israel took over in Gaza They can't trade it, wtf?
|
On October 22 2023 13:17 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Conversely, you should know that Israel will never commit genocide for a similar calculus. Regional Arab leaders can keep their populations in check if Israel just kills some terrorists, but if Palestinians were to start dying in the millions, the frothing rage would boil over and Israel would be invaded by the whole Middle East regardless of deterrence. Even the antisemites don't claim the Jews are unintelligent, and that move would be suicidally stupid.
We can also tell from your posting that you're very opposed to genocide, and so doing it would cause Israel to lose your support. And if Israel loses your support they're going to lose way too much support from around the world, which they can't afford. It's an aspect of the conflict that we don't think about enough, you have to be careful with your ethnic cleansing because otherwise people might get too emotional about it.
I guess that's antisemitism exposed once again, when white people did their genocides they didn't have to worry about all those things.
|
|
|
On October 22 2023 23:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2023 18:17 Nebuchad wrote:On October 22 2023 13:17 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Conversely, you should know that Israel will never commit genocide for a similar calculus. Regional Arab leaders can keep their populations in check if Israel just kills some terrorists, but if Palestinians were to start dying in the millions, the frothing rage would boil over and Israel would be invaded by the whole Middle East regardless of deterrence. Even the antisemites don't claim the Jews are unintelligent, and that move would be suicidally stupid.
We can also tell from your posting that you're very opposed to genocide, and so doing it would cause Israel to lose your support. And if Israel loses your support they're going to lose way too much support from around the world, which they can't afford. It's an aspect of the conflict that we don't think about enough, you have to be careful with your ethnic cleansing because otherwise people might get too emotional about it. I guess that's antisemitism exposed once again, when white people did their genocides they didn't have to worry about all those things. It has to do with power and not the colour of one’s skin. This is shown by China currently committing genocide and the world stays quiet because of economic power.
Yes that is correct. I wish the world would be more committed to upholding human rights than it is, but what can I say that's just me and my far left utopian beliefs.
|
|
|
On October 22 2023 15:51 GreenHorizons wrote:I must misunderstand what you mean by Israel turning at least some of Gaza into a DMZ? EDIT: They can't trade it, wtf?
The outskirts of Gaza are not populated. Adding a fence a little ways in from the existing fence is not going to displace any homes. That is the most likely DMZ.
re:trade- I understand it doesn't make sense as an actual trade, I'm just saying how it would be framed for Hamas to be able to claim victory in scenario 2.
Btw, Blinken just said that Israel will not occupy the land after the war, so you see that Israel did make private assurances of this to the US as I predicted they would.
|
Well that isn't good... I mean that is one hell of a malfunction. What the hell was it firing at?
Edit:
|
When someone declares war against you, going easy and deciding to simply turn part of them into a DMZ rather than dumpstering is pity. Am I misreading? Is Hamas seeking coexistence with Jews and I just haven’t heard about it yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
