|
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 May 20 2021 13:35 Simberto wrote:
Somehow, we (mostly) managed to stop fighting over that shit in Europe after WW2, and it turned out amazingly good for everyone. I still have no clue how exactly that happened.
I can get on board with some of this, but this part seems nuts to me. Its pretty clear how exactly it happened (to the extent it did, which really isn't much).
What happened is confusing and unreliable alliances were replaced by two empires that really didn't want to fight each other (and this isn't abnormal for superpowers historically, they usually don't fight each other until they think the other one is collapsing). There still were plenty of "border skirmishes" anyways.
Plus, the region we are talking about never stopped fighting over anything. We mostly think of the fighting as inconsequential because most of these countries are barely worth your time having as vassal states, but they were existential conflicts. If Israel lost in 1967 it would have been a boat-people situation. If Israel had pressed its advantage in 1967 it could have puppet governments governing 20+ million people right now.
|
I don't think there's a solution with the current leaders. Hamas doesn't care about their own people, Abbas has been in the 12th year of a 4 year term and Netanyahu is fine with the status quo. Hopefully we'll see some change when Israel gets a new prime minister...
|
On May 20 2021 07:07 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 08:00 KwarK wrote:On May 19 2021 07:51 maybenexttime wrote:On May 18 2021 19:18 Broetchenholer wrote:At the moment of the first massacres of Jews in in Palestina, 1929, there were already militant nationalistic movements on both sides. Sources are pretty scarce on the internet, but i think it is safe to say that the Jewish Zionists were not deescalating anything and used the mandate of the British to create a Jewish state to excerpt a lot of influence over areas they were not settling in. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots:Several months earlier Zionist leader Menachem Ussishkin gave a speech demanding "a Jewish state without compromises and without concessions, from Dan to Be'er Sheva, from the great sea to the desert, including Transjordan." He concluded, "Let us swear that the Jewish people will not rest and will not remain silent until its national home is built on our Mt Moriah," a reference to the Temple Mount.[11] Now, i am sure he intended to do that without harming, displacing or subjugating the people already living there. And of course the arabian uprising in 1929 and later were largely arab mobs killing Jews. But to say that the Jewish zionists were just defending themselves and then later might have become terrorist organisations is also conveniently ignoring the beginnings of the state. And while some of these settlers were just fleeing progroms and persecution in eastern europe and were just happy to have a new home, others were militantly pushing the idea of creating their holy land. It's messy and complicated, but the situation is certainly not as easy as "they started it, we had to defend ourselves". I mostly agree. I'm not saying the Jews were innocent in all of this. I merely pointed out the numerous atrocities committed by the Palestinian side as counterweight to Kwark's one-sided depiction of the events, which pretty much left them out entirely. My narrative stopped in early 1948 because I was giving background to why I blame the British and that’s when they left. I do have issues with a lot of what the Arabs did subsequently but I didn’t ascribe a lot of agency to Palestine in the British mandate period because it was not a self governing state and could not be expected to have national policy solutions. I wasn’t purposefully excluding them from the narrative, the narrative was limited in scope to the period of British rule and as such Palestinian agency was limited. Well, make up your mind. You either end your narrative at 1948, in which case you cannot claim that Jews were colonizers displacing the native population (because they did not - they settled sparsely populated areas, land they bought from its legal owners) or we can talk about the aftermath of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, in which case you can bring up the displacement of Palestinian population as a result of failed attempts at war and subsequent acts of terrorism. In reality, Zionism and Palestinian nationalism were born around the same time. Both, Arabs and Jews made claims to land they didn't actually occupy. Why should Arabs dictate where Jews could settle, as long as the latter were not displacing anyone? Also, as I mentioned, your narrative conveniently ignored the issue of Palestinian Arabs massacring Jewish civilians minding their own business in the '20s and '30s. It's quite clear you didn't try to be objective. Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 11:26 KwarK wrote:On May 19 2021 10:52 Magic Powers wrote:On May 19 2021 10:08 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't particularly see why retaliation is necessary. Is oppressing the population, taking their homes, taking their jobs, disappearing them, keeping them imprisoned in Gaza, letting Israelis kick the shit out of them whenever they want, forgetting to investigate their murders etc. etc. not retaliation enough?
That argument is all over the place, so I can't respond to it. On May 19 2021 10:25 KwarK wrote:
1) Just because any attack has a chance of civilian casualties does not mean that all attacks have equal chance of equal civilian casualties. You failed to understand my post. Israel has the right to defend itself, even if that may cause civilian casualties, but Israel is not forced to always engage in maximum retaliation regardless of the risk to civilians. Israel does not always have to use that right. It can judgmentally choose not to retaliate if there is no good target.
2) I explicitly addressed the human shields myth. Where would you like Hamas to launch rockets from? Maybe you'll be more inclined to agree if I say that the practice of human shields was used both by the IDF and by Hamas? And that Israel has in numerous cases not given civilians enough time to evacuate? And that Israel has in some cases attacked areas after announcing otherwise? As usual it's not a one-sided issue. There are credible sources that have reported on the human shields practice by Hamas. Calling it a "myth" isn't right. You can call it a controversial question because in some cases it's not always clear, and then I'd be a lot more inclined to agree, but it's not a "myth". https://www.haaretz.com/hamas-acknowledges-civilian-area-rocket-fire-1.5264400https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-hamas-civilians-human-shields Your source is arguing my point, not yours. My argument was that Gaza is extremely densely populated with civilians, half of whom are children, to the point that there are only civilian areas of Gaza. There’s no designated rocket launch zone in Gaza, it’s all civilian areas, Israel cannot bomb Gaza without bombing civilian areas because Gaza is a civilian area. The accusation of human shields is based on a misunderstanding of what Gaza is, they’re not seeking out civilians to use as shields, the whole place is packed with civilians. You responded to that with sources where Hamas acknowledged they launched rockets from civilian areas in Gaza. Do you see why that proves my point about how there can’t possibly be a designated military rocket launch field in the middle of Gaza and not your point about human shields? To quote your source It could be argued that there is nowhere else for the militants to place their missile batteries, given the urban density of the Gaza Strip.
The enclave is sometimes said to be the most densely populated place on earth, although this is an exaggeration. It is very crowded, though less so than Macau, Singapore, Hong Kong and other cities. You could take a look at a goddamn satellite view instead of embarrassing yourself. While Gaza is densely populated, there's still plenty of room for military installations. The only problem is that they would be an easy target for Israel and launching rockets from there wouldn't lead to Palestinian civilian deaths that Hamas uses for propaganda purposes. Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 16:04 KwarK wrote:On May 19 2021 15:57 Magic Powers wrote:On May 19 2021 15:51 KwarK wrote:
I disagree with the assertion that all civilian deaths would end if Hamas stopped firing rockets. Violent Israeli settlements predate Hamas and would continue with or without Hamas. What are you basing that claim on? Israel absolutely is killing many innocent civilians. I don’t know where you’re getting your news from but it’s not correct. I didn't say they're not killing them, I said your framing is incorrect. They're not targeting them, they're targeting Hamas. Israel is knowingly and deliberately dropping bombs on civilians with the intent of killing adversaries and the knowledge that civilians will also die. They’re not tripping up and accidentally falling on a fragile building causing it to collapse, it’s a deliberate choice with trade offs. On the one hand the adversary survives and may perpetrate future attacks on Israel. On the other the adversary dies but so do civilians. Israel is deliberately weighing the options and deciding that the best option is the one in which they drop a bomb on civilians. I don’t see how you’re getting around that. I’m not saying they like killing civilians, I’m saying they do it anyway. Again an incorrect framing. Israel isn't dropping bombs on civilians, they're targeting Hamas and accepting collateral damage in the process. You’ve still failed to address the issue with your claim of Hamas using human shields which is that there isn’t anywhere for them to launch rockets from that doesn’t have civilians nearby. How exactly would you like Hamas to launch their rockets? They’re not hiding behind civilians, they’re a militia that live among civilians and do not have access to military installations. Hamas is sending rockets towards Israel, which they're doing with the sole purpose of killing Israeli civilians. They're doing this not for military purposes but with the intent to shed Israeli blood indiscriminately. I’m basing the claim that settlements predate Hamas on the linear nature of time and the ability to place events in sequential order within time. Settlements predate Hamas, however, Palestinians routinely killing Jewish civilians predates Jewish settlers displacing native Arab population.
It's frustrating how hard it is to find evidence of any of the things happening before 1925 on the internet. I wasn't even able to find anything concrete on Fula affair that m4ini mentioned, but here is a tangential on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sursock_Purchases
I just find it really strange, that you seem to believe that all this immigration and settlement could happen in a way that drew incredible toxic reactions from the people living there without ever doing them any harm. By 1946, more then 600000 jews lived in their settlements, totaling 33% percent of the population in 1945, from the wikipedia. Do you really believe, that land was just lying around waiting for someone to pick it up? I really can't understand how someone could look at that dynamic and not see how it had to result in a war and how the side that was minvin into the country could not be absolved of responsibility. The Jewish migrants were not moved there by British troops and found a hostile population and then was unable to leave. Next to tired surviviors of atrocities that just wanted to live in peace, there were people that were creating space for those other people to be there. That believed that this land belonged to them due to their ethnicity and that it shouldn't be shared with others. Both cannot exist without each other.
And again, this does not mean that the Israelis are the bad guys, it just means that they were a driving factor for the escalaton of the conflict, together with the other parties. They are not without guilt.
|
On May 20 2021 15:08 RvB wrote:
I don't think there's a solution with the current leaders. Hamas doesn't care about their own people, Abbas has been in the 12th year of a 4 year term and Netanyahu is fine with the status quo. Hopefully we'll see some change when Israel gets a new prime minister...
If history can teach us anything when in comes to religious conflicts, especially in that particular region, it's that there won't be a peaceful solution to this. It'll either go on forever or until one religion is either assimiliated or wiped out.
That's what happened to the old Canaanite Religion, to Ashurism (religion of the Assyrian people; todays Syria) or Neterism and Atenism of ancient Egypt.
I really wannna believe, people are capable of learning from the past, but sticking with the 'familiar' is human nature...sadly. Because holding onto grudges rather than forgiving and moving on is easier and takes way less effort.
|
Would you not say, that we see a tendency of less impact of religion on politics since the time of the canaanites? If anything, looking at history, we should predict that religion will not be the driving factor of the involved parties soon, as this is how history has evolved in most areas of the world in the last couple hundred years.
|
On May 20 2021 18:32 Broetchenholer wrote:
Would you not say, that we see a tendency of less impact of religion on politics since the time of the canaanites? If anything, looking at history, we should predict that religion will not be the driving factor of the involved parties soon, as this is how history has evolved in most areas of the world in the last couple hundred years.
It looks to me like the only possible solutions are political, and it would have to come from the Israeli side. I just can't see a political movement for peace coming from Gaza. The wounds are too recent for them to be able to forgive, and Hamas is far too extreme to even want peace or to work for the benefit of their own people.
I can feasibly see a situation where Israelis stop voting for warmongers, its just somewhat out of reach for the moment. Obviously even if they did I don't know how it leads to peace, but imo religion is already not the main factor in the conflict. Escalations happen when Netanyahu needs them to happen for his own political benefit, not because of the religious differences.
|
As I said...
Sources in the Likud party tell the Ma’ariv newspaper there are concerns Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is extending the fighting in Gaza because Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid currently holds the mandate to form the next government.
“Netanyahu is drawing out the operation in Gaza because Lapid is holding the mandate,” a senior political adviser in the party says.
“He doesn’t seem to have a real desire to eradicate Hamas. Relations between the Arabs in Israel and Jews are being left in ruins,” the adviser says. “Netanyahu is galloping toward a fifth election and taking the country hostage. The collapse of right-wing chairman Naftali Bennett gives him a boost, but support for him within the Likud is weakening.”
Other elements in the right-wing bloc tell the newspaper that it is thought Netanyahu believes the conflict with Hamas will boost his image in fifth elections.
“He is building on the fact that Yamina will be wiped out,” unnamed party officials tell the newspaper.
Shortly after the violence broke out, Yamina’s Bennett abandoned Lapid and turned back to negotiations with Netanyahu’s Likud. The Walla news site reported this week that since then, the premier has toned back his original offer to the right-wing party head significantly.
Source
|
On May 20 2021 18:43 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2021 18:32 Broetchenholer wrote:
Would you not say, that we see a tendency of less impact of religion on politics since the time of the canaanites? If anything, looking at history, we should predict that religion will not be the driving factor of the involved parties soon, as this is how history has evolved in most areas of the world in the last couple hundred years. It looks to me like the only possible solutions are political, and it would have to come from the Israeli side. I just can't see a political movement for peace coming from Gaza. The wounds are too recent for them to be able to forgive, and Hamas is far too extreme to even want peace or to work for the benefit of their own people. I can feasibly see a situation where Israelis stop voting for warmongers, its just somewhat out of reach for the moment. Obviously even if they did I don't know how it leads to peace, but imo religion is already not the main factor in the conflict. Escalations happen when Netanyahu needs them to happen for his own political benefit, not because of the religious differences.
I'm also of the opinion that religion is not particularly significant in the Palestinian conflict anymore. Much more relevant are questions of land and water. Relying on my own hazy memories of maps I've seen years ago, I'm suggesting that the expansion of Israeli settlements has centered around arable land, and water sources, both of which are somewhat scarce in the region. Limiting the economic opportunities of Palestians, plus discrimination in labour markets has lead to some mad unemployment figures in Gaza and West Bank and that's yet another factor that correlates with radicalisation.
Religion may be more relevant in the wider Arab-Israeli relationships and conflicts, but the primary issues and drivers of the conflict in the Palestinian regions are more tangible than that.
|
On May 20 2021 13:22 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +You gave me exactly zero examples of how jews initially started violence and terror against muslim palestinians. Zero. At this point I'll claim that you're wrong.
While i'd argue that, by today, it doesn't matter how it started - Kwark does have a point there. I suggest reading Benny Morris' view on how things got rolling. Nobody is arguing that the arabs are innocent, that's nonsense. What people are arguing is the weird belief that jewish settlers somehow were. According to Benny Morris, one of the - if not the first victim of political violence between jews and arabs was in 1882 when an arab got shot at his wedding. To clarify, Benny Morris is a jewish (zionist) journalist, criticised for, well, "being biased" when pointing out atrocities and war crimes by the jewish - despite actually being in favour of them. Interesting read, also pointing out that, as mentioned, jewish settlers indeed played with fire by taking advantage of people not understanding rules, buying up land and then refuse to lease, rent or hire arabs. Factually displacing arabs. This "david vs goliath" bullshit is simply not rooted in reality. Both sides share their fair portion of blame, and as mentioned, now almost 100 years later it doesn't matter how it started. What matters is a solution - not that i have one, but arguing that Kwark didn't give proof of "jewish terror starting everything" (which i don't think he even claimed?) while ignoring what really happened in regards to atrocities on both(!) sides is somewhat disingenuous. Jews lived in the region for decades prior to the violence erupting. They simply co-existed, and "all was well". It all went to shit when zionism (and in response, nationalism) rose - i'm not sure how you'd react to people quite literally talking about taking your country and turning it into theirs. You might not agree that palestine was actually a country, but i bet you any money, that palestinians did. I bet it didn't inspire confidence or trust that the first portion of land purchased by jews was under the institution of the "Jewish Colonisation Association". Can we agree on that? Lastly, at the other guy.. Show nested quote +Settlements predate Hamas, however, Palestinians routinely killing Jewish civilians predates Jewish settlers displacing native Arab population.
Fula affair. Land bought around the village of al-Fula, leading to the entire village being expelled by the Hashomer. That was in 1910. It's nowhere near as simple as you make it ought to be. There's no innocent party in this, nor is there a "more blame on that side". Unless by "that side" you mean the british.
Then argue against it, give me sources. I'm all ears. Everything I read basically says that neither zionists nor islamist nationalists having any sympathy for eachother initially. That only deteriorated with more jewish migrants arriving and more land being purchased and then islamist nationalists started progroms against jews. Which just radicalized and strenghened both movements more, while more jews migrated and landpurchases increased. I haven't read about jewish progroms against muslim palestinians from 1900 to 1930. I don't deny that there might have been, but I haven't found anything and to me it seems at least most direct killings or violence seems to have come from islamist nationalists. Zionists on the other hand seemed to intentionally evict muslim palestians from land they purchased and did avoid or refuse working with them.
I also would be very interested about sources about how the land purchases of migrating jews and or displacement of muslim palestinians living there happened, and how it was managed by the british.
The whole point I'm making is that it was not simple. Thats why calling migration an invasion is wrong. That's why effectively characterizing all jewish settlers as fascist zionists is wrong.
And you know why it is relevant today? Because until today islamists and or antisemites use exactly these wordings to justify their view that Israel has no right to exist and to displace (or worse) all the jews living in it.
|
the only thing that matters here is who/which side can stop the conflict and that's israel, only israel.
palestinians can't do shit: they do something, they get killed; they do nothing, they get colonized to extinction. different ways to achieve the same end goal.
i don't give a shit about who kills whom, since israel is the only one able to do something about this, it is the only one to blame.
|
On May 20 2021 22:36 MWY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2021 13:22 m4ini wrote:You gave me exactly zero examples of how jews initially started violence and terror against muslim palestinians. Zero. At this point I'll claim that you're wrong.
While i'd argue that, by today, it doesn't matter how it started - Kwark does have a point there. I suggest reading Benny Morris' view on how things got rolling. Nobody is arguing that the arabs are innocent, that's nonsense. What people are arguing is the weird belief that jewish settlers somehow were. According to Benny Morris, one of the - if not the first victim of political violence between jews and arabs was in 1882 when an arab got shot at his wedding. To clarify, Benny Morris is a jewish (zionist) journalist, criticised for, well, "being biased" when pointing out atrocities and war crimes by the jewish - despite actually being in favour of them. Interesting read, also pointing out that, as mentioned, jewish settlers indeed played with fire by taking advantage of people not understanding rules, buying up land and then refuse to lease, rent or hire arabs. Factually displacing arabs. This "david vs goliath" bullshit is simply not rooted in reality. Both sides share their fair portion of blame, and as mentioned, now almost 100 years later it doesn't matter how it started. What matters is a solution - not that i have one, but arguing that Kwark didn't give proof of "jewish terror starting everything" (which i don't think he even claimed?) while ignoring what really happened in regards to atrocities on both(!) sides is somewhat disingenuous. Jews lived in the region for decades prior to the violence erupting. They simply co-existed, and "all was well". It all went to shit when zionism (and in response, nationalism) rose - i'm not sure how you'd react to people quite literally talking about taking your country and turning it into theirs. You might not agree that palestine was actually a country, but i bet you any money, that palestinians did. I bet it didn't inspire confidence or trust that the first portion of land purchased by jews was under the institution of the "Jewish Colonisation Association". Can we agree on that? Lastly, at the other guy.. Settlements predate Hamas, however, Palestinians routinely killing Jewish civilians predates Jewish settlers displacing native Arab population.
Fula affair. Land bought around the village of al-Fula, leading to the entire village being expelled by the Hashomer. That was in 1910. It's nowhere near as simple as you make it ought to be. There's no innocent party in this, nor is there a "more blame on that side". Unless by "that side" you mean the british. Then argue against it, give me sources. I'm all ears. Everything I read basically says that neither zionists nor islamist nationalists having any sympathy for eachother initially. That only deteriorated with more jewish migrants arriving and more land being purchased and then islamist nationalists started progroms against jews. Which just radicalized and strenghened both movements more, while more jews migrated and landpurchases increased. I haven't read about jewish progroms against muslim palestinians from 1900 to 1930. I don't deny that there might have been, but I haven't found anything and to me it seems at least most direct killings or violence seems to have come from islamist nationalists. Zionists on the other hand seemed to intentionally evict muslim palestians from land they purchased and did avoid or refuse working with them. I also would be very interested about sources about how the land purchases of migrating jews and or displacement of muslim palestinians living there happened, and how it was managed by the british. The whole point I'm making is that it was not simple. Thats why calling migration an invasion is wrong. That's why effectively characterizing all jewish settlers as fascist zionists is wrong. And you know why it is relevant today? Because until today islamists and or antisemites use exactly these wordings to justify their view that Israel has no right to exist and to displace (or worse) all the jews living in it.
I don't understand your position. You have basically now accepted all the points that we have brought up about the situation, but now shifted the goal post to we have to proof that Jewish settlers commited massacres on Palestinians. As if your position was, that the Palestinians would have been allowed to do massacres if they had massacred them first. Massacres are never okay. At the same time tough, acting as if massacres from settlers didn't happen, then the settlers can be absolved of anything is equally wrong. Can we please agree, that the desire of organisations and leaders of the Jewish Settlers to create an ethnostate in a land they were at first considered Guests in was in itself an aggression against the people that were deisplaced or lost their livelihood due to these settlements. And that despite them knowing that they became increasingly less welcome, they continued doing it. Why do they need to murder them to share the blame?
You also seem to be really focused on that one post from KwarK, where he said, that there were Fascists among Zionists. He never said that all settlers were fascist zionists. And i don't think there has been anybody here say anything that could be seen as anti-semitic propaganda. That those people use greatly simplified versions of what has been posted here to demonize the people of Israel does not mean that those points are wrong. It just means that if you reduce a people to the bad things they did, single them out this way and then attribute it to their religion or ethnicity, you are a fucking moron. it doesnt make it untrue though, that every people has already fucked up collectively a few times in the last several hundred years.
|
|
|
Holding so far, looks like everybody got their dose of publicity and is now content with keeping that publicity through the status quo. It's frustrating how willing both sides are to give the politicians of the other side what they want and how predictable those cycles of violence are. Please surprise us positively once.
|
|
|
On May 21 2021 15:48 Broetchenholer wrote:
Holding so far, looks like everybody got their dose of publicity and is now content with keeping that publicity through the status quo. It's frustrating how willing both sides are to give the politicians of the other side what they want and how predictable those cycles of violence are. Please surprise us positively once.
Pretty much. Everytime it gets hyped and it turns out nothing really changed.
|
United States41961 Posts
On May 25 2021 01:49 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2021 15:48 Broetchenholer wrote:
Holding so far, looks like everybody got their dose of publicity and is now content with keeping that publicity through the status quo. It's frustrating how willing both sides are to give the politicians of the other side what they want and how predictable those cycles of violence are. Please surprise us positively once. Pretty much. Everytime it gets hyped and it turns out nothing really changed.
Except one more round of settlements which Israel will never return because to do so would displace the new settlers. Thats the problem. Each time we do this cycle of bulldozing, retaliations, aerial strikes, and ceasefires the noose around Palestine gets tighter. Displacing Israelis on Palestinians land is a red line for most people and they take advantage of that, regardless of how long the settlers have been there and regardless of whether the previous occupants are still alive.
This story is three months old now but it pisses me off.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/israel-destroys-irish-aid-to-palestinian-village-community-1.4489881?mode=amp
Basically Israel designated a Palestinian village as a military firing range, evicted the Palestinians and then demolished the village. There was an international relief effort to provide tents, solar panels, latrines, and medical aid to save the Palestinians. Israel then moved in and destroyed all that stuff too in front of the EU diplomats that had accompanied the aid mission.
This time, it happened as a group of diplomats representing countries that had donated aid were visiting the community. The Israeli military dismantled shelters that had been funded by Ireland and other EU countries as the diplomats looked on
...
The “Irish Aid – Government of Ireland” logos are clearly visible among the debris of broken solar panels, children’s belongings and destroyed tents, marking items donated to the Palestinian families by a European Union umbrella group that includes Ireland among its donors.
It’s a disgrace.
|
It is. But would the situation not be better, if Hamas wouldn't answer that with firing rockets? I mean, sure, it reminds us that Israel is doing outrageous stuff and so for a week or two, the conflict is on our mind again. But also, Netanyahu gets his get out of jail free card and is allowed to bomb Gaza again for bonus points with the Israeli right and Biden can repeat that israel has a right to self defense. I would prefer my government to be less shitty when it comes to not putting pressure on Israel, but i think what enables that is Hamas bombing Israel in the first place.
It's that weird situation where no one gives a shit if Hamas is not bombing Israel, but noone gives a shit because Hamas is bombing Israel.
|
On May 21 2021 15:48 Broetchenholer wrote:
Holding so far, looks like everybody got their dose of publicity and is now content with keeping that publicity through the status quo. It's frustrating how willing both sides are to give the politicians of the other side what they want and how predictable those cycles of violence are. Please surprise us positively once.
Which statu quo? Israel is still expanding and Palestinians territories are shrinking, that's not a statu quo at all.
|
On May 25 2021 20:52 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2021 15:48 Broetchenholer wrote:
Holding so far, looks like everybody got their dose of publicity and is now content with keeping that publicity through the status quo. It's frustrating how willing both sides are to give the politicians of the other side what they want and how predictable those cycles of violence are. Please surprise us positively once. Which statu quo? Israel is still expanding and Palestinians territories are shrinking, that's not a statu quo at all.
But Gaza is proof that this point is irrelevant.
|
How so? Israel is still expanding and Palestinians territories are shrinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
