|
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 November 01 2023 08:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 08:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:49 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:42 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:11 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 06:25 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 06:17 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 06:12 Nebuchad wrote:
What is the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for west bank settlements Jimmi? What about illegal settlements on Syrian land is ethnic cleansing? I don't know Well there you go. Is it safe to say that the Jews have been ethnically cleansed from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and so on? As now there is less than 1 % Jewish people in those countries. What do you mean "well there you go", explain this to me like I'm drunk enough to have just sung Svoboda by Leningrad in the middle of the bridge between Fribourg and Marly because that might be what just happened If you who repeatedly can’t say why it’s ethnic cleansing, if 20% of Israel is Palestinian and allowed to practice their religion and culture, if they have the power to ethnically cleanse and do not. Then it’s not ethnic cleansing. They can do lots of bad things and they are not ethnic cleansing, it is a very specific thing not some term you just throw around. Your turn to answer mine. The number that you're quoting is I'm assuming Israeli Arabs, so you're asking me "Since I'm only a little abusive to one population how can you claim that I'm very abusive to another different population", the answer to this being "Well I just looked at what was happening in the real world and saw that you were". Your strawman is not an answer. It does not excuse the bad stuff they have done or will do and I’ve said as much over and over. It just is not ethnic cleansing and I’m pointing this out because you and many others seem to be ignoring the context of why a group of people who have been ethnically cleansed in the past, multiple times, and have groups actively trying to cleanse them right now are not all making good moral choices. But if you look at the polling it’s far from all of them. This is why so many Israelis go straight to antisemitism, it makes no sense to see this conflict so one sided given the history and current situation. Since it's not ethnic cleansing you won't have qny trouble explaining to me what the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for the settlements in the west bank is I already did. And explained what ethnic cleansing is. And unlike you I’ve answered each of your posts without mis representing you or making up strawman to try to distract or make you made.
Where was your answer I must have missed it, I only remember you asking another question and then going "well there you go"
|
|
|
On November 01 2023 09:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 09:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:58 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:49 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:42 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:11 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 06:25 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I don't know Well there you go. Is it safe to say that the Jews have been ethnically cleansed from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and so on? As now there is less than 1 % Jewish people in those countries. What do you mean "well there you go", explain this to me like I'm drunk enough to have just sung Svoboda by Leningrad in the middle of the bridge between Fribourg and Marly because that might be what just happened If you who repeatedly can’t say why it’s ethnic cleansing, if 20% of Israel is Palestinian and allowed to practice their religion and culture, if they have the power to ethnically cleanse and do not. Then it’s not ethnic cleansing. They can do lots of bad things and they are not ethnic cleansing, it is a very specific thing not some term you just throw around. Your turn to answer mine. The number that you're quoting is I'm assuming Israeli Arabs, so you're asking me "Since I'm only a little abusive to one population how can you claim that I'm very abusive to another different population", the answer to this being "Well I just looked at what was happening in the real world and saw that you were". Your strawman is not an answer. It does not excuse the bad stuff they have done or will do and I’ve said as much over and over. It just is not ethnic cleansing and I’m pointing this out because you and many others seem to be ignoring the context of why a group of people who have been ethnically cleansed in the past, multiple times, and have groups actively trying to cleanse them right now are not all making good moral choices. But if you look at the polling it’s far from all of them. This is why so many Israelis go straight to antisemitism, it makes no sense to see this conflict so one sided given the history and current situation. Since it's not ethnic cleansing you won't have qny trouble explaining to me what the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for the settlements in the west bank is I already did. And explained what ethnic cleansing is. And unlike you I’ve answered each of your posts without mis representing you or making up strawman to try to distract or make you made. Where was your answer I must have missed it, I only remember you asking another question and then going "well there you go" It’s “ illegal settlements on Syrian land” which I’ve also stated is bad. It is also bad when some rich guy buys a building and kicks every out so they can sell it to others for money, but that is also not ethnic cleansing. Now are you going to answer or just expect me to take the high road and you not so much.
But the question wasn't about whether you think it's bad or not, the question was "What's the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for doing them"
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27265 Posts
On November 01 2023 09:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 09:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:58 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:49 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:42 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:11 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 06:25 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I don't know Well there you go. Is it safe to say that the Jews have been ethnically cleansed from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and so on? As now there is less than 1 % Jewish people in those countries. What do you mean "well there you go", explain this to me like I'm drunk enough to have just sung Svoboda by Leningrad in the middle of the bridge between Fribourg and Marly because that might be what just happened If you who repeatedly can’t say why it’s ethnic cleansing, if 20% of Israel is Palestinian and allowed to practice their religion and culture, if they have the power to ethnically cleanse and do not. Then it’s not ethnic cleansing. They can do lots of bad things and they are not ethnic cleansing, it is a very specific thing not some term you just throw around. Your turn to answer mine. The number that you're quoting is I'm assuming Israeli Arabs, so you're asking me "Since I'm only a little abusive to one population how can you claim that I'm very abusive to another different population", the answer to this being "Well I just looked at what was happening in the real world and saw that you were". Your strawman is not an answer. It does not excuse the bad stuff they have done or will do and I’ve said as much over and over. It just is not ethnic cleansing and I’m pointing this out because you and many others seem to be ignoring the context of why a group of people who have been ethnically cleansed in the past, multiple times, and have groups actively trying to cleanse them right now are not all making good moral choices. But if you look at the polling it’s far from all of them. This is why so many Israelis go straight to antisemitism, it makes no sense to see this conflict so one sided given the history and current situation. Since it's not ethnic cleansing you won't have qny trouble explaining to me what the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for the settlements in the west bank is I already did. And explained what ethnic cleansing is. And unlike you I’ve answered each of your posts without mis representing you or making up strawman to try to distract or make you made. Where was your answer I must have missed it, I only remember you asking another question and then going "well there you go" It’s “ illegal settlements on Syrian land” which I’ve also stated is bad. It is also bad when some rich guy buys a building and kicks every out so they can sell it to others for money, but that is also not ethnic cleansing. Now are you going to answer or just expect me to take the high road and you not so much.
What high ground? What is the reasonable justification for Israel encroaching on territories they previously agreed would be untouched?
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27265 Posts
On November 01 2023 09:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 09:30 WombaT wrote:On November 01 2023 09:08 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 09:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:58 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:49 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:42 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
What do you mean "well there you go", explain this to me like I'm drunk enough to have just sung Svoboda by Leningrad in the middle of the bridge between Fribourg and Marly because that might be what just happened If you who repeatedly can’t say why it’s ethnic cleansing, if 20% of Israel is Palestinian and allowed to practice their religion and culture, if they have the power to ethnically cleanse and do not. Then it’s not ethnic cleansing. They can do lots of bad things and they are not ethnic cleansing, it is a very specific thing not some term you just throw around. Your turn to answer mine. The number that you're quoting is I'm assuming Israeli Arabs, so you're asking me "Since I'm only a little abusive to one population how can you claim that I'm very abusive to another different population", the answer to this being "Well I just looked at what was happening in the real world and saw that you were". Your strawman is not an answer. It does not excuse the bad stuff they have done or will do and I’ve said as much over and over. It just is not ethnic cleansing and I’m pointing this out because you and many others seem to be ignoring the context of why a group of people who have been ethnically cleansed in the past, multiple times, and have groups actively trying to cleanse them right now are not all making good moral choices. But if you look at the polling it’s far from all of them. This is why so many Israelis go straight to antisemitism, it makes no sense to see this conflict so one sided given the history and current situation. Since it's not ethnic cleansing you won't have qny trouble explaining to me what the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for the settlements in the west bank is I already did. And explained what ethnic cleansing is. And unlike you I’ve answered each of your posts without mis representing you or making up strawman to try to distract or make you made. Where was your answer I must have missed it, I only remember you asking another question and then going "well there you go" It’s “ illegal settlements on Syrian land” which I’ve also stated is bad. It is also bad when some rich guy buys a building and kicks every out so they can sell it to others for money, but that is also not ethnic cleansing. Now are you going to answer or just expect me to take the high road and you not so much. What high ground? What is the reasonable justification for Israel encroaching on territories they previously agreed would be untouched? Ya for the 100th time I said that’s bad, not genocide. I was saying I’m taking the high ground by unlike him and now you not strawman ing and misrepresenting.
What highground is that exactly?
|
|
|
There is no doubt that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is openly supported at the level of official policy discussions in Israel.
The Israeli Ministry of Intelligence is recommending the forcible and permanent transfer of the Gaza Strip’s 2.2 million Palestinian residents to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, according to an official document
The 10-page document, dated Oct. 13, 2023, bears the logo of the Intelligence Ministry — a small governmental body that produces policy research and shares its proposals with intelligence agencies, the army, and other ministries. It assesses three options regarding the future of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in the framework of the current war, and recommends a full population transfer as its preferred course of action. It also calls on Israel to enlist the international community in support of this endeavor. The document, whose authenticity was confirmed by the ministry, has been translated into English in full here on +972.
The document unequivocally and explicitly recommends transferring Palestinian civilians from Gaza as the desired outcome of the war.
In addition, the document encourages the government to lead a public campaign in the Western world to promote the transfer plan “in a way that does not incite or vilify Israel.” This would be done by presenting the expulsion of Gaza’s population as a humanitarian necessity to win over international support, by arguing that relocation will lead to “fewer casualties among the civilian population compared to the expected casualties if the population remains.”
The document also says that the United States should be enlisted in the process to exert pressure on Egypt to absorb the Palestinian residents
www.972mag.com
That last bit is basically why Israel is holding ~400 US citizens hostage forcing them to dodge bombs and suffer without food, water, medicine, etc in Gaza and the US is letting them.
|
United States44241 Posts
On November 01 2023 01:29 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2023 20:21 Salazarz wrote:
Well, first of all, on what grounds is Israel 'eradicating' Hamas? Are they at war with Gaza, and Hamas is the hostile government? Then Gaza must be recognized as a state, with all that such recognition entails. Is Gaza a territory occupied by Israel? Then it's Israel's duty to provide the basic services and ensure safety of its citizens.
Right now, Israel is basically having its cake and eating it too, by insisting that Hamas & Gaza is not in any way under Israel's jurisdiction, yet at the same time they pretty much completely control all access to the Gaza strip and insist they have the right to 'police' it as they see fit, all the while Palestine isn't recognized as an independent state by any of their allies (much on Israel's own behest). Recognition as a state or state actor is not necessary. ISIS and its caliphate were not recognized and Al Qaeda was not a state actor. Yet resolution 1368 was unanimously adopted by the security council in 2001 and recognized the right to self-defense. Nobody also disputes Iraqs right to self defense in their fight against ISIS. Show nested quote +As for proportionality of the response... pretty much everything Israel has done since the beginning of their campaign is in direct violation of Geneva Convention and there's really no 'legal grey area' about it at all. What counts as proportionate is a grey area. I'll quote The Economist: Show nested quote +Article 51 of the United Nations charter gives states the right of self-defence against armed attack, provided that, according to customary international law, the force they use is necessary and proportionate. Proportionality does not mean symmetry in the type of weapons used or the number of casualties caused. It means that the defending state can use as much force as is needed to address the threat—and no more. Show nested quote +On October 31 2023 21:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 31 2023 18:23 RvB wrote:On October 31 2023 07:19 Acrofales wrote:On October 31 2023 04:22 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2023 03:34 Acrofales wrote:On October 31 2023 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2023 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On October 31 2023 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 30 2023 23:54 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
No that's not what's happening because if someone is doing self-defense they don't have a shared responsibility, they have no responsibility at all. In your eyes, when did this conflict between Israelis and Palestinians begin? I have no idea. The history doesn't matter to me because we can't change it, what matters is the current situation. It matters because the definition of the conflict matters. If someone decides the universe was created 50 years ago, Israel is colonizing. If the universe was not created 50 years ago, Israel and Palestine are at war. It is deeply dishonest to frame the conflict as beginning recently because that timeframe is defined purely for the intention of framing Palestinians as victims rather than participants in a war. You could pick various points in history depending on who you want to frame as a victim for pretty much any conflict that’s ever happened. Either you start from the beginning or you just accept that it’s a war. The way people use “self defense” is remarkably silly with this conflict. Neither Palestine or Israel are acting in self defense. Well, anything before 1920 doesn't make much sense. Before that, the area was a part of the Ottoman empire and that was that. And I'd argue that since the 1920s, Israel is colonizing. I am not sure why that is relevant to whether Israelis have a right to be on that bit of land, seeing as none of those involved in the current conflict had anything to do with any of that 100-year-old history. Are you saying nothing before 1920 has any impact on what happened after 1920? I feel like that is extremely not true. So long as events before 1920 contributed to events after 1920, it is appropriate to consider them. So sure, if you pretend Jews and Palestinians met each other for the first time in 1920 and were slamming beers together and having a great time, when suddenly Jews deciding to colonize, it’s easy to view the dynamic as colonizing. But there isn’t a reason to do that when we have a great of evidence that events before 1920 had a significant impact. Okay, explain to me how the Ottoman Empire or earlier has any bearing on the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. Without referencing certain religious manuscripts please, because that isn't *history*. Because unless we're referring to pre-Roman times, there has been no serious attempt to establish a state of Israel before the growth of Zionism. Zionism emerged during the Ottoman Empire and the first two Aliyah's were to Ottoman Palestine. E.g. Ben Gurion migrated during the second Aliyah. Indirectly Jews were also second class citizens and persecuted during various periods. None of that really matters for the question of self defense. There was a ceasefire and Hamas broke it. I've broadly seen two arguments against Israels use of self defense as a justification for the war. 1. It's technically not self defense because Gaza is occupied and Hamas is not a state actor. 2. The current response is not proportional. The first one I find uninteresting. Hamas is an armed group that governs Gaza. That it might not technically fit the definition of self defense misses the point and intent of the law. The second one is more interesting since that's a legal grey area. It's not clear what proportional is. Depending on your interpretation eradicating Hamas can be proportional. You find it "uninteresting" that Israel was already in the process of attacking Palestine before it started to self-defend against Palestine? They weren't. There was a ceasefire. Hamas broke the ceasefire. Show nested quote +On October 31 2023 21:48 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 31 2023 18:23 RvB wrote:On October 31 2023 07:19 Acrofales wrote:On October 31 2023 04:22 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2023 03:34 Acrofales wrote:On October 31 2023 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2023 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On October 31 2023 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 30 2023 23:54 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
No that's not what's happening because if someone is doing self-defense they don't have a shared responsibility, they have no responsibility at all. In your eyes, when did this conflict between Israelis and Palestinians begin? I have no idea. The history doesn't matter to me because we can't change it, what matters is the current situation. It matters because the definition of the conflict matters. If someone decides the universe was created 50 years ago, Israel is colonizing. If the universe was not created 50 years ago, Israel and Palestine are at war. It is deeply dishonest to frame the conflict as beginning recently because that timeframe is defined purely for the intention of framing Palestinians as victims rather than participants in a war. You could pick various points in history depending on who you want to frame as a victim for pretty much any conflict that’s ever happened. Either you start from the beginning or you just accept that it’s a war. The way people use “self defense” is remarkably silly with this conflict. Neither Palestine or Israel are acting in self defense. Well, anything before 1920 doesn't make much sense. Before that, the area was a part of the Ottoman empire and that was that. And I'd argue that since the 1920s, Israel is colonizing. I am not sure why that is relevant to whether Israelis have a right to be on that bit of land, seeing as none of those involved in the current conflict had anything to do with any of that 100-year-old history. Are you saying nothing before 1920 has any impact on what happened after 1920? I feel like that is extremely not true. So long as events before 1920 contributed to events after 1920, it is appropriate to consider them. So sure, if you pretend Jews and Palestinians met each other for the first time in 1920 and were slamming beers together and having a great time, when suddenly Jews deciding to colonize, it’s easy to view the dynamic as colonizing. But there isn’t a reason to do that when we have a great of evidence that events before 1920 had a significant impact. Okay, explain to me how the Ottoman Empire or earlier has any bearing on the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. Without referencing certain religious manuscripts please, because that isn't *history*. Because unless we're referring to pre-Roman times, there has been no serious attempt to establish a state of Israel before the growth of Zionism. Zionism emerged during the Ottoman Empire and the first two Aliyah's were to Ottoman Palestine. E.g. Ben Gurion migrated during the second Aliyah. Indirectly Jews were also second class citizens and persecuted during various periods. None of that really matters for the question of self defense. There was a ceasefire and Hamas broke it. I've broadly seen two arguments against Israels use of self defense as a justification for the war. 1. It's technically not self defense because Gaza is occupied and Hamas is not a state actor. 2. The current response is not proportional. The first one I find uninteresting. Hamas is an armed group that governs Gaza. That it might not technically fit the definition of self defense misses the point and intent of the law. The second one is more interesting since that's a legal grey area. It's not clear what proportional is. Depending on your interpretation eradicating Hamas can be proportional. To disregard the first point is to: 1. Wave away the entire argument that Israel is a colonial project and that those violently opposed are freedom fighters regaining their land. It implicitly implies that Israel has a right to the land and are on the whole justified in its actions. You can argue that is your view or that say Hamas isn't correct in its approach, which is fine, but unless you've discussed that already I don't think you can just wave away half the argument. 2. It also implies that this wasn't an eventuality with how the Gazans have been treated. Hamas shouldn't attack civilians or have a desire to kill all Jews, but tio imply that there the Gazan open air prison doesn't create the hostile conditions that bred Hamas at all is I think a little short sighted. Israel created their own boogeyman and then played victim to it, no? 3. It also ignores that there isn't constant land seizure and other aggressive acts by Israel into WB, Leb, and Syria. To your response on proportionality, I'm confused why we so willingly disregard the lives of Palestinian civillians. 1. There's nothing to wave away. The British Mandate incorporated the Balfour Declaration that supported a home for the Jews in Palestine. Israel is also recognized by the UN. The Jews are allowed to live there legally and Hamas aren't freedom fighters. They are genocidal maniacs. Palestinians deserve a state but so do Israelites. 2. It does not imply that. The right to self defense applies if an armed attack occurs. Israel's blockade of Gaza is not an armed attack. There are also better ways to solve the conflict than going on a killing spree. It is no coincidence that the conflict was the closest to a solution after the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist and started negotiating. 3. It does not. For the Palestinians, only the situation in the WB applies and nothing of what happened there can be classified as an armed attack that would justify Hamas' attacks. Show nested quote +
To your response on proportionality, I'm confused why we so willingly disregard the lives of Palestinian civillians.
I do not disregard the lives of Palestinian civilians. We differ in our opinion on how to minimize Palestinian casualties. A ceasefire now leaves Hamas in charge and condemns Palestinians in Gaza to years if not decades of oppression. In the long run, it will inevitably lead to another invasion of Israel and many more civilian casualties in Israel and Gaza. In my view getting rid of Hamas is the only way to reduce future casualties and suffering.
I think you’re overselling the Balfour declaration. Both in terms of how significant it was as a statement and whether Palestine was Britain’s to give away. If your legal authority for colonization comes from the British you’re already on shaky ground but if it’s not even an act of parliament or a statement of policy by the British then you’re building a straw house on that shaky ground.
|
Northern Ireland27265 Posts
On November 01 2023 10:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 10:00 WombaT wrote:On November 01 2023 09:39 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 09:30 WombaT wrote:On November 01 2023 09:08 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 09:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:58 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:49 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:42 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
The number that you're quoting is I'm assuming Israeli Arabs, so you're asking me "Since I'm only a little abusive to one population how can you claim that I'm very abusive to another different population", the answer to this being "Well I just looked at what was happening in the real world and saw that you were". Your strawman is not an answer. It does not excuse the bad stuff they have done or will do and I’ve said as much over and over. It just is not ethnic cleansing and I’m pointing this out because you and many others seem to be ignoring the context of why a group of people who have been ethnically cleansed in the past, multiple times, and have groups actively trying to cleanse them right now are not all making good moral choices. But if you look at the polling it’s far from all of them. This is why so many Israelis go straight to antisemitism, it makes no sense to see this conflict so one sided given the history and current situation. Since it's not ethnic cleansing you won't have qny trouble explaining to me what the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for the settlements in the west bank is I already did. And explained what ethnic cleansing is. And unlike you I’ve answered each of your posts without mis representing you or making up strawman to try to distract or make you made. Where was your answer I must have missed it, I only remember you asking another question and then going "well there you go" It’s “ illegal settlements on Syrian land” which I’ve also stated is bad. It is also bad when some rich guy buys a building and kicks every out so they can sell it to others for money, but that is also not ethnic cleansing. Now are you going to answer or just expect me to take the high road and you not so much. What high ground? What is the reasonable justification for Israel encroaching on territories they previously agreed would be untouched? Ya for the 100th time I said that’s bad, not genocide. I was saying I’m taking the high ground by unlike him and now you not strawman ing and misrepresenting. What highgriound is that exactly? The one I just explained, I’m using facts and not misrepresenting your points. Sadly you guys are unable to do the same.
No you’re just annoyed that people who consider your position complicit in Israeli war crimes call you as such
Come the fuck on man
|
|
|
On November 01 2023 01:14 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 01:07 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 01:01 Cricketer12 wrote:On November 01 2023 00:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:34 Cricketer12 wrote:On November 01 2023 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Most people on gaza do not want to sacrifice their lives to kill jews, wtf. Hamas does. Not saying all Palestinians do, but Hamas intends to keep on making this trade and they have said so themselves repeatedly since October 7. So Israel should just make sure they only kill that same members of Hamas every time Hamas decides to run around killing 1000 people? Gotta make sure that response is proportional, while also leaving open the possibility of the cycle repeating forever? That’s why I’m saying the “proportional!!!” Argument is entirely bad faith. It makes zero sense and is yet another example of people gladly lunging towards “solutions” that allow the situation to continue. I'm not sure where you expect the current Israeli method to go other than the total genocide of the Palestinian people. But hey, who gives af about 2 million civies if we get 100 terrorists. In all other war scenarios, the losing side runs away and they become refugees in other countries. But as I’ve posted here a million times, neighboring Muslim countries encourage this fight and specifically say Palestinians are fighting on behalf of Arabs. They view Palestinians as a means to an end and confine them to their battle ring by closing their borders. Neighboring Muslim countries work to ensure this conflict continues and Hamas is on board because they love the idea of sacrificing themselves to kill Jews. It’s also dumb to pretend you think Israel would start gunning down 100k people and Egypt and Jordan would just give a thumbs up and do nothing. Egypt, Jordan, and other nations would never let Israel do that. At the bare minimum, they would open their borders rather than their current protocol of “wait no, I need you all to go keep fighting”. I don’t think you actually think these things. This feels like just trying to advocate for a position rather than you giving your impression of how events would unfold. You don’t actually imagine Israel killing 1 million people while everyone sits idly drooling 6000 civilians have been murdered in a fortnight, while the majority of this thread sits and pretends like it's fine. What the actual fuck are you talking about. No, of course Israel isn't going to huddle a million people into a firing style execution but to pretend they havent consistenly killed civies, bombed infrastructure and grabbed more and more land over the years is ignorant. 6000 coming from the same folks who said 500 and a flattened hospital? Yeah I bet. It’s all nonsense. You’re quoting a terrorist organization when the hospital is still there. When do we trust Hamas and when do we not? In your eyes, when are they reputable and trustworthy? You started with 2 million civilians, now it’s how many? And you’re saying Hamas is only 100 people? It’s unclear what you think the actual situation is because you just fling a bunch of hyperbole while cuddling a sense of moral high ground. They released the civilian registry detailing every single person that's been killed. Literally what more do you want? I love it when the mask comes off like this. You fucking disgust me.
I would like to point out that Israel is still, to this day, working on identifying the victims of the Oct 7 attack. That was nearly a month ago. They have an organization dedicated to doing exactly that that has experts and serious funding. They are using state of the art tech like DNA sequencing. Israel has complete military control of the sites of the attack.
Hamas, which has none of those things and is mostly hiding in tunnels, magically knows the exact number of deceased and their exact names. It strains credibility to say the least.
|
On November 01 2023 01:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:46 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:22 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:
The propositional whatever argument is so dumb. That would mean Hamas can just decide to trade with 1000 lives every so often because they are barbarians who openly admit they love the idea of sacrificing themselves for killing Jews. They have endorsed the idea and want it to happen frequently. And now, under your system of no proportionality, they can't do that. Because... why? Edit: but to be fair I agree with you that the proportionality argument is a bit cringe, because the correct amount of Gaza civilians that should die in response to 1000 Israeli civilians dying is 0, not 1000. lol so when do we say it’s Hamas and when does it suddenly become Palestinians again? Who is the government is Gaza? This is just the same bad faith definition swapping mod conversation. Hamas launched the attack, but when Israel attacks, suddenly everyone is Palestinian and not Hamas. This circular reasoning just ends up back at “how about hamas continues to rule over Gaza and launch attacks every so often?”. I will go out of my way to just pretend this is unintentional and I am misunderstanding you. Is there a way for Israel to eliminate Hamas without harming “Palestinian civilians”? Is it that Israel is choosing a worse way to kill Hamas members and they ought to do it differently? Or is this just your subtle way of saying Israel should not eliminate Hamas? There isn't a special combination of words that you're going to find where you'll get me to agree with you that it's okay to bomb the civilians of a group that you've been trying to ethnically cleanse for years. I understand the perspective you’re fond of and I’m not trying to pull you away from it. What I wanted to verify is that you do not advocate for any pathway that leads to Hamas no longer controlling territory. I was curious if I was missing something and that there were other ideas people had for preventing Hamas from controlling land because it felt like you didn’t like any of the ideas I’m familiar with. But just to be entirely clear, it’s not important to me to change anyone’s ideas because none of us will ever change anything. It’s just a bunch of ideas rubbing against each other and learning. All totally irrelevant. So far my impression is that folks in this conversation fit into 1 of 2 categories: 1: The costs of eliminating Hamas are too big, so we should allow Hamas to continue launching attacks that kill tons of people every so often because it’s better than all available options of eliminating Hamas. Eliminating Hamas will always come with some form of ethnic cleansing, so it must be avoided entirely. 2: Hamas must be eliminated in order to prevent repeats of October 7. This is fundamentally a war and the ugliness of war is a sad reality. For anyone who feels like they are better described by [1] than [2], do you think a 2 state solution will ever be a reality? If so, why/how? I don't think 2 is realistic either. You can not eliminate Hamas, or at least that fundamentalism as long as Iran exists. You just go from Al-Qaeda to ISIS or whatever.
It's true that you can't eliminate Hamas as an ideology. However you can remove them as a state actor, which removes the vast majority of their power to do evil. There are still people who identify with ISIS, heck even the Nazis, but neither of those groups have the power to slaughter thousands or millions anymore. They can't indoctrinate an entire populace within a school system. They can't assess taxes for weapons or force conscription.
Hamas may never be fully eliminated, but it's regime can certainly be removed as the governing power over Gaza, which is a worthwhile goal for the good of both Israelis and the Gazans who would no longer have to live under Hamas.
|
On November 01 2023 10:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 01:29 RvB wrote:On October 31 2023 20:21 Salazarz wrote:
Well, first of all, on what grounds is Israel 'eradicating' Hamas? Are they at war with Gaza, and Hamas is the hostile government? Then Gaza must be recognized as a state, with all that such recognition entails. Is Gaza a territory occupied by Israel? Then it's Israel's duty to provide the basic services and ensure safety of its citizens.
Right now, Israel is basically having its cake and eating it too, by insisting that Hamas & Gaza is not in any way under Israel's jurisdiction, yet at the same time they pretty much completely control all access to the Gaza strip and insist they have the right to 'police' it as they see fit, all the while Palestine isn't recognized as an independent state by any of their allies (much on Israel's own behest). Recognition as a state or state actor is not necessary. ISIS and its caliphate were not recognized and Al Qaeda was not a state actor. Yet resolution 1368 was unanimously adopted by the security council in 2001 and recognized the right to self-defense. Nobody also disputes Iraqs right to self defense in their fight against ISIS. As for proportionality of the response... pretty much everything Israel has done since the beginning of their campaign is in direct violation of Geneva Convention and there's really no 'legal grey area' about it at all. What counts as proportionate is a grey area. I'll quote The Economist: Article 51 of the United Nations charter gives states the right of self-defence against armed attack, provided that, according to customary international law, the force they use is necessary and proportionate. Proportionality does not mean symmetry in the type of weapons used or the number of casualties caused. It means that the defending state can use as much force as is needed to address the threat—and no more. On October 31 2023 21:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 31 2023 18:23 RvB wrote:On October 31 2023 07:19 Acrofales wrote:On October 31 2023 04:22 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2023 03:34 Acrofales wrote:On October 31 2023 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2023 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On October 31 2023 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
In your eyes, when did this conflict between Israelis and Palestinians begin?
I have no idea. The history doesn't matter to me because we can't change it, what matters is the current situation. It matters because the definition of the conflict matters. If someone decides the universe was created 50 years ago, Israel is colonizing. If the universe was not created 50 years ago, Israel and Palestine are at war. It is deeply dishonest to frame the conflict as beginning recently because that timeframe is defined purely for the intention of framing Palestinians as victims rather than participants in a war. You could pick various points in history depending on who you want to frame as a victim for pretty much any conflict that’s ever happened. Either you start from the beginning or you just accept that it’s a war. The way people use “self defense” is remarkably silly with this conflict. Neither Palestine or Israel are acting in self defense. Well, anything before 1920 doesn't make much sense. Before that, the area was a part of the Ottoman empire and that was that. And I'd argue that since the 1920s, Israel is colonizing. I am not sure why that is relevant to whether Israelis have a right to be on that bit of land, seeing as none of those involved in the current conflict had anything to do with any of that 100-year-old history. Are you saying nothing before 1920 has any impact on what happened after 1920? I feel like that is extremely not true. So long as events before 1920 contributed to events after 1920, it is appropriate to consider them. So sure, if you pretend Jews and Palestinians met each other for the first time in 1920 and were slamming beers together and having a great time, when suddenly Jews deciding to colonize, it’s easy to view the dynamic as colonizing. But there isn’t a reason to do that when we have a great of evidence that events before 1920 had a significant impact. Okay, explain to me how the Ottoman Empire or earlier has any bearing on the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. Without referencing certain religious manuscripts please, because that isn't *history*. Because unless we're referring to pre-Roman times, there has been no serious attempt to establish a state of Israel before the growth of Zionism. Zionism emerged during the Ottoman Empire and the first two Aliyah's were to Ottoman Palestine. E.g. Ben Gurion migrated during the second Aliyah. Indirectly Jews were also second class citizens and persecuted during various periods. None of that really matters for the question of self defense. There was a ceasefire and Hamas broke it. I've broadly seen two arguments against Israels use of self defense as a justification for the war. 1. It's technically not self defense because Gaza is occupied and Hamas is not a state actor. 2. The current response is not proportional. The first one I find uninteresting. Hamas is an armed group that governs Gaza. That it might not technically fit the definition of self defense misses the point and intent of the law. The second one is more interesting since that's a legal grey area. It's not clear what proportional is. Depending on your interpretation eradicating Hamas can be proportional. You find it "uninteresting" that Israel was already in the process of attacking Palestine before it started to self-defend against Palestine? They weren't. There was a ceasefire. Hamas broke the ceasefire. On October 31 2023 21:48 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 31 2023 18:23 RvB wrote:On October 31 2023 07:19 Acrofales wrote:On October 31 2023 04:22 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2023 03:34 Acrofales wrote:On October 31 2023 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2023 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On October 31 2023 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
In your eyes, when did this conflict between Israelis and Palestinians begin?
I have no idea. The history doesn't matter to me because we can't change it, what matters is the current situation. It matters because the definition of the conflict matters. If someone decides the universe was created 50 years ago, Israel is colonizing. If the universe was not created 50 years ago, Israel and Palestine are at war. It is deeply dishonest to frame the conflict as beginning recently because that timeframe is defined purely for the intention of framing Palestinians as victims rather than participants in a war. You could pick various points in history depending on who you want to frame as a victim for pretty much any conflict that’s ever happened. Either you start from the beginning or you just accept that it’s a war. The way people use “self defense” is remarkably silly with this conflict. Neither Palestine or Israel are acting in self defense. Well, anything before 1920 doesn't make much sense. Before that, the area was a part of the Ottoman empire and that was that. And I'd argue that since the 1920s, Israel is colonizing. I am not sure why that is relevant to whether Israelis have a right to be on that bit of land, seeing as none of those involved in the current conflict had anything to do with any of that 100-year-old history. Are you saying nothing before 1920 has any impact on what happened after 1920? I feel like that is extremely not true. So long as events before 1920 contributed to events after 1920, it is appropriate to consider them. So sure, if you pretend Jews and Palestinians met each other for the first time in 1920 and were slamming beers together and having a great time, when suddenly Jews deciding to colonize, it’s easy to view the dynamic as colonizing. But there isn’t a reason to do that when we have a great of evidence that events before 1920 had a significant impact. Okay, explain to me how the Ottoman Empire or earlier has any bearing on the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. Without referencing certain religious manuscripts please, because that isn't *history*. Because unless we're referring to pre-Roman times, there has been no serious attempt to establish a state of Israel before the growth of Zionism. Zionism emerged during the Ottoman Empire and the first two Aliyah's were to Ottoman Palestine. E.g. Ben Gurion migrated during the second Aliyah. Indirectly Jews were also second class citizens and persecuted during various periods. None of that really matters for the question of self defense. There was a ceasefire and Hamas broke it. I've broadly seen two arguments against Israels use of self defense as a justification for the war. 1. It's technically not self defense because Gaza is occupied and Hamas is not a state actor. 2. The current response is not proportional. The first one I find uninteresting. Hamas is an armed group that governs Gaza. That it might not technically fit the definition of self defense misses the point and intent of the law. The second one is more interesting since that's a legal grey area. It's not clear what proportional is. Depending on your interpretation eradicating Hamas can be proportional. To disregard the first point is to: 1. Wave away the entire argument that Israel is a colonial project and that those violently opposed are freedom fighters regaining their land. It implicitly implies that Israel has a right to the land and are on the whole justified in its actions. You can argue that is your view or that say Hamas isn't correct in its approach, which is fine, but unless you've discussed that already I don't think you can just wave away half the argument. 2. It also implies that this wasn't an eventuality with how the Gazans have been treated. Hamas shouldn't attack civilians or have a desire to kill all Jews, but tio imply that there the Gazan open air prison doesn't create the hostile conditions that bred Hamas at all is I think a little short sighted. Israel created their own boogeyman and then played victim to it, no? 3. It also ignores that there isn't constant land seizure and other aggressive acts by Israel into WB, Leb, and Syria. To your response on proportionality, I'm confused why we so willingly disregard the lives of Palestinian civillians. 1. There's nothing to wave away. The British Mandate incorporated the Balfour Declaration that supported a home for the Jews in Palestine. Israel is also recognized by the UN. The Jews are allowed to live there legally and Hamas aren't freedom fighters. They are genocidal maniacs. Palestinians deserve a state but so do Israelites. 2. It does not imply that. The right to self defense applies if an armed attack occurs. Israel's blockade of Gaza is not an armed attack. There are also better ways to solve the conflict than going on a killing spree. It is no coincidence that the conflict was the closest to a solution after the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist and started negotiating. 3. It does not. For the Palestinians, only the situation in the WB applies and nothing of what happened there can be classified as an armed attack that would justify Hamas' attacks.
To your response on proportionality, I'm confused why we so willingly disregard the lives of Palestinian civillians.
I do not disregard the lives of Palestinian civilians. We differ in our opinion on how to minimize Palestinian casualties. A ceasefire now leaves Hamas in charge and condemns Palestinians in Gaza to years if not decades of oppression. In the long run, it will inevitably lead to another invasion of Israel and many more civilian casualties in Israel and Gaza. In my view getting rid of Hamas is the only way to reduce future casualties and suffering. I think you’re overselling the Balfour declaration. Both in terms of how significant it was as a statement and whether Palestine was Britain’s to give away. If your legal authority for colonization comes from the British you’re already on shaky ground but if it’s not even an act of parliament or a statement of policy by the British then you’re building a straw house on that shaky ground.
It may be morally questionable to use the British as a standard for anything, but legally, that type of document was how things were determined in British overseas territories. There are probably a dozen or more countries in the Middle East and Africa whose borders were set by documents like this. Again, not saying it's right, but legally speaking, no one contests that those borders are the real borders of those countries.
|
On November 01 2023 08:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:11 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 06:25 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 06:17 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 06:12 Nebuchad wrote:
What is the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for west bank settlements Jimmi? What about illegal settlements on Syrian land is ethnic cleansing? I don't know Well there you go. Is it safe to say that the Jews have been ethnically cleansed from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and so on? As now there is less than 1 % Jewish people in those countries. What do you mean "well there you go", explain this to me like I'm drunk enough to have just sung Svoboda by Leningrad in the middle of the bridge between Fribourg and Marly because that might be what just happened If you who repeatedly can’t say why it’s ethnic cleansing, if 20% of Israel is Palestinian and allowed to practice their religion and culture, if they have the power to ethnically cleanse and do not. Then it’s not ethnic cleansing. They can do lots of bad things and they are not ethnic cleansing, it is a very specific thing not some term you just throw around. Your turn to answer mine. The number that you're quoting is I'm assuming Israeli Arabs, so you're asking me " Since I'm only a little abusive to one population how can you claim that I'm very abusive to another different population", the answer to this being "Well I just looked at what was happening in the real world and saw that you were".
Perhaps you and I disagree on what the term "abusive" means.
Israeli Arabs have median incomes at least double their neighbors in every other country in the region (outside the UAE, where Israeli Arabs have only a slight advantage), as well as the best access to free and quality health care and education, as well as tax benefits as the government attempts to improve their economic situation yet further. Huge numbers of them are doctors or nurses. There is affirmative action at Israeli universities that gives them enhanced chance of entry over Jews. They have multiple judges around the country, including one with a permanent position on the Supreme Court right now. Not only do they have multiple political parties with elected representation in the Kenesset, but, just last year, the United Arab List party was literally part of the ruling coalition over the whole country.
By any metric of quality of life we use in the Western World, they are better off than all of their other brethren in the Middle East.
|
Ethnic Cleansing
The UN definition for it is: Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group, which is contrary to international law.
There are a lot of examples of ethnic cleansing throughout history, so let’s examine a few to see how well they fit this definition.
Turkey 1914-1922: Turkey had a large population of Christian Greeks, and during these years Muslim Turks killed 300,000 to 900,000 of them. Another million or so Greeks fled during this time as well. This (in addition to the earlier Armenian Genocide in the 1890s and 1909) led to a much more homogenous Muslim/Turkic Turkey.
This fits the UN’s definition quite well. Turkey was originally had lots of Turks and Greeks. In a few short years, they forcibly moved (or eliminated) over a million Greeks. Afterwards, there were virtually no Greeks left, so the country is almost entirely just Muslim Turks now.
The Muslim World ~1948: Muslim countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa all had Jewish populations who had lived there for hundreds or, in some places, thousands of years (heck, the Mizrahi Jews in places like Iraq and Yemen were there before Islam even existed). Around 1948, those countries created a series of pogroms and persecutions that led to the fleeing of some 900,000 Jews from those countries.
This also fits the UN definition quite well. These places once had both Jews and Muslims. In a few short years, the Muslims forcibly removed virtually all the Jews. The result was countries that were homogenous and almost totally lacking in Jews.
Now let’s look at Israel proper. There were Muslims and Jews there in 1950. There are Muslims and Jews there today in similar proportions (slightly higher proportion is Muslim actually, due to higher birthrates). The Muslims who lived in the old city of Acre still live in the old city of Acre. The Muslims that lived in the old city of Jaffa, still live in the old city of Jaffa. Basically every place that had a Muslim population then, has a similar (if larger) one today.
Glancing at the UN definition, we see that this fails it spectacularly. There were both Jews and Muslims at the beginning of the state, but there still are today. No mass exodus of Muslims has occurred since then, forced or otherwise. All this despite having 70+ years to do so, exponentially longer than either of our examples above, that actually did have homogenizing results.
But perhaps when people say “ethnic cleansing,” they are referring to the West Bank, so let’s take a look at that.
In 1966, the West Bank was already homogenously Arab. Since then, well, similar to Israel proper, every Arab town then, is still an Arab town in the same location today. There has been no mass exodus of Arabs, forced or otherwise. The region has become more heterogenous as some Jews move in, but that is literally the opposite of the definition of ethnic cleansing. The West Bank is less ethnically homogenous now.
Granted, Israeli settlers have been buying up empty hilltops and building houses on them. On a geopolitical level, this seems to be about establishing Israeli habitation of this land. This is relevant because, unlike virtually every other nation in the world whose borders are decided by armies, all signs point to Israel and Palestine’s final borders drawn on a map (at a negotiating table) around population centers. Therefore, the settlements are giving Israel more of an upper hand in where those final boundaries will be drawn.
Now, you may argue that this is unfair, and that’s fine. But what you’ll notice is that why it’s actually bad requires a whole paragraph explanation of the history of this situation that is rather unique in the world. It happens to be significantly more complex than most conflicts. You will also notice, that it does not fit into the rather simple definition of the phrase “ethnic cleansing,” which does neatly describe many other conflicts in the world.
But if both are bad, why does it matter if you use the phrase or not? The answer is that words have meanings. If you can’t be bothered to use words that accurately describe something, then, at best you are uninformed, at worst you are intentionally lying. If a landlord evicts a family and that family goes around saying that he murdered some of them instead, they are lying to try to get him punished for more than his actual crime. The landlord should be punished for any crime he actually committed, not the worst crime you can imagine just because you don’t like him.
If you believe that Israel is a bad guy, it shouldn’t be hard to point to actual things that Israel has actually done and explain how they are bad. Changing the definition of charged words so you can use them as a mallet to make sure that your “team” “wins” would take you away from being a voice of reason and make you into a voice of propaganda instead.
|
Norway28875 Posts
|
Canada11593 Posts
On November 01 2023 09:30 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 09:08 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 09:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:58 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:49 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:42 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 08:23 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 08:11 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Well there you go.
Is it safe to say that the Jews have been ethnically cleansed from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and so on? As now there is less than 1 % Jewish people in those countries. What do you mean "well there you go", explain this to me like I'm drunk enough to have just sung Svoboda by Leningrad in the middle of the bridge between Fribourg and Marly because that might be what just happened If you who repeatedly can’t say why it’s ethnic cleansing, if 20% of Israel is Palestinian and allowed to practice their religion and culture, if they have the power to ethnically cleanse and do not. Then it’s not ethnic cleansing. They can do lots of bad things and they are not ethnic cleansing, it is a very specific thing not some term you just throw around. Your turn to answer mine. The number that you're quoting is I'm assuming Israeli Arabs, so you're asking me "Since I'm only a little abusive to one population how can you claim that I'm very abusive to another different population", the answer to this being "Well I just looked at what was happening in the real world and saw that you were". Your strawman is not an answer. It does not excuse the bad stuff they have done or will do and I’ve said as much over and over. It just is not ethnic cleansing and I’m pointing this out because you and many others seem to be ignoring the context of why a group of people who have been ethnically cleansed in the past, multiple times, and have groups actively trying to cleanse them right now are not all making good moral choices. But if you look at the polling it’s far from all of them. This is why so many Israelis go straight to antisemitism, it makes no sense to see this conflict so one sided given the history and current situation. Since it's not ethnic cleansing you won't have qny trouble explaining to me what the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for the settlements in the west bank is I already did. And explained what ethnic cleansing is. And unlike you I’ve answered each of your posts without mis representing you or making up strawman to try to distract or make you made. Where was your answer I must have missed it, I only remember you asking another question and then going "well there you go" It’s “ illegal settlements on Syrian land” which I’ve also stated is bad. It is also bad when some rich guy buys a building and kicks every out so they can sell it to others for money, but that is also not ethnic cleansing. Now are you going to answer or just expect me to take the high road and you not so much. What high ground? What is the reasonable justification for Israel encroaching on territories they previously agreed would be untouched?
I can think of a couple- to fatten out territory so it's not so easily cut off in the inevitable next invasion timed on some Jewish holiday. You look at the old 1947 partition plan, and it is simply untenable if you have any kind of hostile neighbours- and with the corridor to Jerusalem quickly cut off in their war for independence, I can imagine that strategic vulnerability has always crossed the minds of their generals every time they've been invaded. Second- push back the sites from which rockets are firing from. Settlements that will not allow rocket launching PLOs, Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever successor group the pops up are certainly preferable to ones that do. Three- a more cynical move by those who no longer believe that peace can be achieved by giving up land. Land for peace didn't seem to work before, so the more entrenched Israeli settlements are, the more it becomes theirs by status quo and it becomes harder for people to demand that they give it up. Annexation by settlement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
