|
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 23 2023 00:27 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2023 15:51 GreenHorizons wrote: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? 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.
I don't know how far you mean by "a little ways" but "we're only forcibly expelling you to steal some of your land and trade the rest back to you in exchange for something you don't have the power to give us" isn't the reassurance you seem to believe it is.
Your concept of this trade is completely nonsensical. Not just as an actual trade, but as the propaganda you're pitching too.
Blinken has the same problem Israel and you do in that none of you know what "after the war/conflict" means while not reconciling how big of a problem that is when making Palestinian's returning home contingent on it.
+ Show Spoiler +That being said I wouldn't put it past Israel to pull some "oh no, you misunderstand, we're governing/settling Azzah".
|
|
|
On October 23 2023 02:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2023 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:
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? No Hamas clear stated goal is genocide of all that do not fit their fanatical ideology, the only reason people do not think they are Nazi level evil is because of the power imbalance. They are out for killing Jews, Christian’s, Muslims different or more moderate, lgbtq+, atheists, Hindus, Buddists and anyone I may have missed. On top of this they treat women like property and non there kind of Muslim women worse. That organization is as bad as it gets in the world, and run by billionaire and millionaires that profit off the whole thing in the name of a warped version of faith.
This is my biggest take away from the conflict as a whole.
Its frankly typical of our world no matter where you live or who you are. The poor suffer to benefit the rich as usual. The victims are normal people, on both sides, and the perpetrators are fucking psychopaths, on both sides. The question of value judgement on which side is worse is irrelevant, its just poor people suffering to benefit the rich or powerful.
Israel isn't the victim. The Israeli casualties are victims and Jews worldwide suffering racism are, just like Hamas isn't a victim, but the Palestinian people are and the victims of islamophobia as a result of Hamas are.
|
|
|
So Israel literally fired at the crossing where aid goes through... and as a result injured 9 Egyptian soldiers.
|
Israel was very clear that if they have reason to believe the aid will benefit Hamas, the aid is getting bombed. That includes silly things like giving Hamas supplies from civilians and then replenishing those supplies with aid. The blockade is intended to starve Hamas. And since Hamas is attempting to kill all Jews, it’s entirely above the belt to take steps to induce famine and whatnot on Hamas and anyone who is seeking to provide material benefits to Hamas. You know how in Ukraine, the west is doing a silly dance where the US restocks other country’s planes or supplies or whatever if those countries give planes or supplies or whatever to Ukraine? Israel is basically saying they aren’t going to pretend that isn’t logically equivalent to just giving supplies directly.
If people are making a conscious decision to provide a material benefit to Hamas, and Hamas still plans on killing all Jews, I struggle to view the situation as anything other than a war being participated in by whoever is providing that material benefit to Hamas. Whether directly or indirectly, the impact is the same.
|
I was thinking about Michael Brooks today and watching some old videos, thought I'd share one. Truly an exceptional voice that the left lost.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Oh come on lol
So we're to believe that Hamas attackers carried with them, while on the attack, USB drives that had instructions on how to make chemical weapons...? Knowing full well they would be in gun battles as time went on?! This is amateur hour. Also why is the front page in English lol?
|
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.
China is under a whole bunch of sanctions and is considered an 'enemy of the West', with the official reason for that being their lack of respect for human rights. Israel is a consistent recipient of massive amounts of money, technology transfers, and political support. If you think these two are even remotely comparable, you're actually unhinged.
On a somewhat related note, I don't really buy into the whole 'Jews running the world' conspiracy theory or anything, but the whole Web Summit CEO story is pretty wild.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/web-summit-chief-quits-after-backlash-over-israel-war-crimes-comments/ar-AA1iE6LC
TLDR: guy said war crimes are bad no matter who commits them, Google, Meta, Intel, and a whole bunch of other big names in tech / vc immediately pulled out of the event ran by said guy.
|
On October 23 2023 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:
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?
I should clarify my stance:
Israel's stated goal for the conflict is to destroy Hamas as the governing body of Gaza. This is in everyone's best interest. Israeli's will have one less state level terrorist organization at their borders. Gazans won't be raised in an extremist autocracy that teaches them to hate and throw their lives away. Everyone everywhere should support this happening as quickly as possible, because the longer this takes, the higher the body count on both sides.
If this is successful (which, again, is the goal), Hamas will be gone. The people of Gaza are not all bad though, and Israel's best hope for the future is to try to slowly turn them into a friend. Likely, this will be done by handing Gaza over to the PA or something. That said, a population who has been fed extremist propaganda for 70 years isn't going to turn on a dime, so a DMZ will be set up so Israeli's can sleep better at night while Gazans are eased out of their extremism.
The goal is not to take land. The DMZ just helps ensure future peace.
My "Scenario 2" was only if Israel fails in their primary goal. It's just a contingency. Although, in that contingency (where Hamas still runs Gaza), the DMZ would be even more important. But even then, the bigger goal would be re-establishing deterrence, and that will certainly happen, because I see no reasonable scenario where thousands of Hamas militants are not eliminated.
On October 23 2023 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2023 00:27 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 22 2023 15:51 GreenHorizons wrote: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? 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. I don't know how far you mean by "a little ways" but "we're only forcibly expelling you to steal some of your land
Asking Gazan civilians to leave the war zone has nothing to do with establishing the DMZ. The area around the border are unpopulated. Every Gazan could stay home and Israel could take that land and make a DMZ without bothering a single Gazan. But again, making a DMZ is not the primary goal of this opperation.
and trade the rest back to you in exchange for something you don't have the power to give us" isn't the reassurance you seem to believe it is.
Well, this theoretical contingency trade would be with Hamas, who do have the power to return the hostages.
If your concern is that the average Gazan won't be persuaded by this, well, Israel is a country, not a used car salesman. Their goal is the well being of their citizens, not convincing other people that they are telling the truth. They've used automated phone calls, made pronouncements, and dropped leaflets. That is far more than any other country in the history of the planet has done to protect the citizens of a country that is at war with them, and to expect more is unreasonable.
Your concept of this trade is completely nonsensical. Not just as an actual trade, but as the propaganda you're pitching too.
I'm not sure what propaganda I'm pitching exactly. That Israel is a rational actor working to defend it's people? That they aren't all devils with horns out to kill non-Jews and take their land? I've seen some very clear propaganda saying the opposite types of things, but usually people don't use propaganda to humanize humans.
Blinken has the same problem Israel and you do in that none of you know what "after the war/conflict" means while not reconciling how big of a problem that is when making Palestinian's returning home contingent on it. + Show Spoiler +That being said I wouldn't put it past Israel to pull some "oh no, you misunderstand, we're governing/settling Azzah".
I should have clarified, but there is a very clear end condition to the war: eliminating Hamas as the governing body of Gaza.
|
On October 23 2023 13:18 Cerebrate1 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 23 2023 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:
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? I should clarify my stance: Israel's stated goal for the conflict is to destroy Hamas as the governing body of Gaza. This is in everyone's best interest. Israeli's will have one less state level terrorist organization at their borders. Gazans won't be raised in an extremist autocracy that teaches them to hate and throw their lives away. Everyone everywhere should support this happening as quickly as possible, because the longer this takes, the higher the body count on both sides. If this is successful (which, again, is the goal), Hamas will be gone. The people of Gaza are not all bad though, and Israel's best hope for the future is to try to slowly turn them into a friend. Likely, this will be done by handing Gaza over to the PA or something. That said, a population who has been fed extremist propaganda for 70 years isn't going to turn on a dime, so a DMZ will be set up so Israeli's can sleep better at night while Gazans are eased out of their extremism. The goal is not to take land. The DMZ just helps ensure future peace. My "Scenario 2" was only if Israel fails in their primary goal. It's just a contingency. Although, in that contingency (where Hamas still runs Gaza), the DMZ would be even more important. But even then, the bigger goal would be re-establishing deterrence, and that will certainly happen, because I see no reasonable scenario where thousands of Hamas militants are not eliminated. On October 23 2023 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2023 00:27 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 22 2023 15:51 GreenHorizons wrote: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? 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. I don't know how far you mean by "a little ways" but "we're only forcibly expelling you to steal some of your land Asking Gazan civilians to leave the war zone has nothing to do with establishing the DMZ. The area around the border are unpopulated. Every Gazan could stay home and Israel could take that land and make a DMZ without bothering a single Gazan. But again, making a DMZ is not the primary goal of this opperation. and trade the rest back to you in exchange for something you don't have the power to give us" isn't the reassurance you seem to believe it is. Well, this theoretical contingency trade would be with Hamas, who do have the power to return the hostages. If your concern is that the average Gazan won't be persuaded by this, well, Israel is a country, not a used car salesman. Their goal is the well being of their citizens, not convincing other people that they are telling the truth. They've used automated phone calls, made pronouncements, and dropped leaflets. That is far more than any other country in the history of the planet has done to protect the citizens of a country that is at war with them, and to expect more is unreasonable. Your concept of this trade is completely nonsensical. Not just as an actual trade, but as the propaganda you're pitching too. I'm not sure what propaganda I'm pitching exactly. That Israel is a rational actor working to defend it's people? That they aren't all devils with horns out to kill non-Jews and take their land? I've seen some very clear propaganda saying the opposite types of things, but usually people don't use propaganda to humanize humans. Blinken has the same problem Israel and you do in that none of you know what "after the war/conflict" means while not reconciling how big of a problem that is when making Palestinian's returning home contingent on it. + Show Spoiler +That being said I wouldn't put it past Israel to pull some "oh no, you misunderstand, we're governing/settling Azzah". I should have clarified, but there is a very clear end condition to the war: eliminating Hamas as the governing body of Gaza. So best case in what you described, Israel only definitely steals "a little" of Gaza from the Palestinians it's telling it's not going to do that to. Again, not the reassurance you seem to think it is.
What I wanted clarity on is how much further from the interior barrier you are talking about Israel stealing. DMZ's can be miles wide
As for the point about your concept of the trade being nonsensical as propaganda, it's absurd. Israel can't trade land they're not stealing in the first place or convince the people they're stealing it from that Israel did them favor by "returning" (less than all of) what they totally weren't stealing (but are definitely stealing some of).
It's nonsensical as a trade and nonsensical as propaganda to help end the ongoing massacre of Palestinians by Israel.
|
On October 22 2023 18:17 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I disagree that Israel potentially committing genocide is a topic that "we don't think about enough." Quite the opposite, I think the wider world thinks about it far too much considering how unlikely it actually is.
I've given at least some rationales as to why it wouldn't make sense for Israel to commit genocide, but here is a collected list for good measure:
1. Jews are the most vocal anti-genocide people out there, for obvious historical reasons.
2. Israel depends on the US militarily for gear and politically in the UN. Americans like to believe they always support the good guy, and genocide is one of the fastest ways to prove you aren't the good guy.
3. They've had the firepower to do it for decades, and not only have they not done it, they haven't even moved the needle (see population graphs of Palestinians).
4. They spent millions in R&D on tech and tactics that minimize civilian casualties better than anyone in history. Clearly the laws of war don't require that or everyone else would have done it too.
5. Israel's greatest threat is coordinated attack from all it's neighbors, and nothing would bring the Middle East together against a common enemy faster than millions of Muslims killed by infidels.
Ok, so Israel is very unlikely to commit genocide, but what's the harm in talking about it? In asking to prevent it even!
Let's take America and Canada. They are very close allies and wouldn't attack each other unless the whole geopolitical table got flipped somehow. But what if people started saying, "What if America invades Canada?" "Shouldn't we send observers to make sure America doesn't do that?" "Can you imagine how swiftly and terribly America would annihilate everyone in Canada if they really wanted to?" "Canada is defenseless to America, their women and children wouldn't be safe if America attacked." Flashing through your head just now, if only briefly, were probably images of America being bad or doing bad things. Those images and the mental correlations they create, will probably not last, because this may be the last time you ever hear about America invading Canada, but if you heard about it every few months or years, your brain would start making more permanent bad associations about America.
But here's the thing, America never did anything to deserve any of those associations.
Well, when people consider the possibility of Israel committing genocide (especially if they don't have a list like the one above in front of them), there is a natural mental connection of those ideas: Israel=genocide. When they see it again and again, they start to just associate Israel with genocide. If they hear about someone else killing a terrorist, they may think "good, terrorist thwarted." But if Israel does it, their brain jumps to "Israel=genocide" and they follow that thought process instead and think "that terrorist thing is probably an excuse so Israel could genocide that guy."
By keeping this at the forefront of our minds, we are trained to believe these things regardless of any connection (or lack there of) to facts on the ground.
This is a propaganda technique that was used in Nazi Germany. The Arab world began using it this specific way (connecting Israel and genocide) as early as the 1960s. Despite only gaining increasing historical evidence of the actual event's unlikeliness to occur in the 60 years since then, people believe it more and more simply because of how often it's been repeated.
Let's not become victims of the propaganda of foreign states who do not have our best interests at heart. Let's not train ourselves to hate Israel by repeating slogans that have not basis in fact.
|
Northern Ireland25003 Posts
On October 23 2023 02:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2023 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:
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? No Hamas clear stated goal is genocide of all that do not fit their fanatical ideology, the only reason people do not think they are Nazi level evil is because of the power imbalance. They are out for killing Jews, Christian’s, Muslims different or more moderate, lgbtq+, atheists, Hindus, Buddists and anyone I may have missed. On top of this they treat women like property and non there kind of Muslim women worse. That organization is as bad as it gets in the world, and run by billionaire and millionaires that profit off the whole thing in the name of a warped version of faith.
What billlionaires are ensonsed in Hamas exactly?
And yes, they’re not good folks but the power imbalance isn’t some factor that can be waved away, it’s very pertinent. Folks like the Nazis had autonomy and pretty decent lives and actively chose to exterminate others for cultivated ideological reasons. People in Gaza effectively live in an open air prison with escape being difficult and no real prospects, so for them to turn to bitter resentment isn’t exactly equivalent
|
Northern Ireland25003 Posts
On October 23 2023 06:46 Nebuchad wrote:I was thinking about Michael Brooks today and watching some old videos, thought I'd share one. Truly an exceptional voice that the left lost. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62I61kBahNY
RIP, an articulate and often hilarious commentator whenever the scenario demanded it.
Hate to invoke the ‘only the good die young’ cliche but I feel it applies in this instance
|
Norway28636 Posts
Can't just the DMZ be taken from Israeli territory outside Gaza? I thought the Gaza strip itself already included a 'No-Go' area next to the border. If Israel takes a similar area from the region they control themselves, couldn't that suffice?
Also - I agree that the word genocide is best avoided (I find that when there are words with many different possible meanings, going with the 'more extreme' meaning tends to turn debates into debates about semantics rather than about whether what is happening is okay). That said, I'd like to move the discussion onto the west bank, because that does a better job problematizing Israel's actions than what happens in Gaza. In Gaza, for some people, combating Hamas seems to justify 'everything short of genocide'. To me it seems like a lot of people would actually be fine with 100k civilians dying if it also meant the death of the 30-40k estimated Hamas soldiers. To be clear, I'm not in agreement with these people (I think this type of death toll would ensure that there's a future generation of Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, or Al-Aqsa, or whatever), but I also don't think there's much debate to be had.
That said, relevant to the debate about civilian casualties and Hamas using human shields and that this is why the civilian casualties are so high even though Israel gives a warning, I'm seeing the red crescent (muslim red cross) complain about being bombed without warning, and the UN gaveUN experts decry bombing of hospitals and schools as crimes against humanity, call for prevention of genocide a press release 4 days ago which is very clear in its condemnation of elements of Israel's response. And while they're not claiming a genocide IS happening, they are warning about one potentially happening.
Anyway. In the West Bank, there's no Hamas (at least not of significance). Not that there are no groups wanting to use violence against Israel in the West Bank, but Israeli actions cannot be defended by 'we must use these measures to eradicate Hamas'. Yet, in the West Bank, there are still Palestinians who are killed and who lose their homes - as well as having to live with generally oppressive apartheid policies. Until Israel changes their policy here, they imo have no credibility in claiming that the elements of their policy that they themselves admit is 'unfortunate' is a necessary consequence of Hamas.
|
On October 23 2023 17:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:Can't just the DMZ be taken from Israeli territory outside Gaza? I thought the Gaza strip itself already included a 'No-Go' area next to the border. If Israel takes a similar area from the region they control themselves, couldn't that suffice? Also - I agree that the word genocide is best avoided (I find that when there are words with many different possible meanings, going with the 'more extreme' meaning tends to turn debates into debates about semantics rather than about whether what is happening is okay). That said, I'd like to move the discussion onto the west bank, because that does a better job problematizing Israel's actions than what happens in Gaza. In Gaza, for some people, combating Hamas seems to justify 'everything short of genocide'. To me it seems like a lot of people would actually be fine with 100k civilians dying if it also meant the death of the 30-40k estimated Hamas soldiers. To be clear, I'm not in agreement with these people (I think this type of death toll would ensure that there's a future generation of Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, or Al-Aqsa, or whatever), but I also don't think there's much debate to be had. That said, relevant to the debate about civilian casualties and Hamas using human shields and that this is why the civilian casualties are so high even though Israel gives a warning, I'm seeing the red crescent (muslim red cross) complain about being bombed without warning, and the UN gave UN experts decry bombing of hospitals and schools as crimes against humanity, call for prevention of genocide a press release 4 days ago which is very clear in its condemnation of elements of Israel's response. And while they're not claiming a genocide IS happening, they are warning about one potentially happening. Anyway. In the West Bank, there's no Hamas (at least not of significance). Not that there are no groups wanting to use violence against Israel in the West Bank, but Israeli actions cannot be defended by 'we must use these measures to eradicate Hamas'. Yet, in the West Bank, there are still Palestinians who are killed and who lose their homes - as well as having to live with generally oppressive apartheid policies. Until Israel changes their policy here, they imo have no credibility in claiming that the elements of their policy that they themselves admit is 'unfortunate' is a necessary consequence of Hamas.
In fact, over the last few years, the land grab has been accelerating. And the current conflict in Gaza is being used as an excuse to accelerate further.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/10/23/israel-hamas-war-settlers-speed-up-eviction-of-palestinian-bedouins-in-west-bank-hills-amid-war_6195780_4.html (behind a paywall)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/21/the-most-successful-land-grab-strategy-since-1967-as-settlers-push-bedouins-off-west-bank-territory (free)
Basically instead of building villages and taking just the land of the village, they are settling farmers, and running bedouins off their grazing land. The military is helping the settlers. And when the military doesn't, then armed militias. This is land that Israel has agreed belongs to Palestine. It isn't some hazy border that nobody really agreed to. It's the 1967 border that was reaffirmed in the Oslo accords. And unlike Gaza, the West Bank is ruled democratically, at least at a local level, with elections that were, in 2021/22, mostly won by Fatah and PFLP (granted, Hamas and PIJ refused to participate, but it seems unlikely they'd refuse if they were set to gain political power in the West Bank). Not only has Israel not destroyed their settlements at every chance they were given, but are extending the settlements further and further. As Drone pointed out, Hamas cannot be blamed for this, as there is no Hamas in the West Bank.
|
The acceleration of the last few days is perhaps best examplified by the National Security minister distributing a bunch of weapons to these settlers so they can "defend themselves" better while taking the land of Palestinians: https://www.timesofisrael.com/ben-gvir-says-10000-assault-rifles-purchased-for-civilian-security-teams
Bezalel Smotrich, who is himself a settler and is currently the minister of Finance, is helpful when talking about this stuff because he's more open than most about being a fascist, so he has a bunch of quotes on his Wiki: in March 2023, speaking from a podium that depicted a map of Israel that incorporated Jordan and parts of Syria and Lebanon, he denied Palestinian identity, saying that there isn't any "Palestinian history or culture", continuing by saying that there is "no such thing as a Palestinian people".
According to Ron Ben-Yishai, in his dual role as Finance Minister and adjunct Minister in the Ministry of Defense, Smotrich intends to implement ideas set forth in his “Decisive Plan” (2017) which, according to Ben-Yishai, foresees “flood(ing), simply so, the areas of Judea and Samaria with settlements and Jewish settlers. When this happens, the Palestinians are supposed to understand that they have no chance to get a state of their own and they would have to choose between one of the three options – a life of subjugation under Israeli rule, emigration or a Shahid (martyr) death”.
As for Netanyahu himself, as mentioned several times earlier in the thread we have him talking about how Hamas is helpful to them because it makes it impossible for Palestine to establish a state, which can only be described as helpful if the project is ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
That's why it's sometimes hard for me to keep my cool when I see people continuing to hold the line that Israel is just defending itself, it's not like I'm clever for seeing through it, they're not exactly subtle.
|
@ Cerebrate
Ethnic cleansing and genocide are not the same thing. The former could be the removal of people from land. The latter would include the eradication of those people. The former is about "Lebensraum." The latter is a "final solution".
This difference is important to understand in regards to the Israel-Palestine conflict, because Israel is certainly, without a doubt, committing ethnic cleansing. Even more irrefutable is their Apartheid.
Genocide meanwhile is historically an escalation to ethnic cleansing. Neither America nor Canada are engaged in ethnic cleansing of one another. However, America has its own history of ethnic cleansing on its own soil - and so do many other countries on this planet.
Nowadays America is relatively tame in this regard, whereas Israel is strictly not. This is why a discussion about genocide makes sense regarding Israel, especially now during this hot conflict.
|
|
|
Why am I not surprised they're into crypto
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
