NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 09 2024 04:32 KT_Elwood wrote: There are about half as many people in gaza than coming to germany from syria in 2015-2016.
Pretty sure there is a solution that involves making them a good offer to live somewhere else - despite being urged by iranian proxies to further play the human shield.
Interesting. So you are in favor of ethnic cleansing because it's "realistic"? Do you actually believe it is realistic or do you just wish it were realistic? And why do you wish for this rather than for Israel's allies to stop funding Israel?
Note: I am saying all this assuming Israel will continue to be powerful enough to make all these decisions themselves. I think Israel losing American support or otherwise crumbling is unlikely to the point that no one should use it as an assumption for any argument. And its certainly not reasonable to use it as some beacon of hope for Palestinians.
I don't think anyone is "in favor" of forced displacement. It is similar to no one being "in favor" of abortions, even if someone believes a woman has a right to decide if she aborts a pregnancy. When someone is terminally ill and suffering from extreme pain, assisted suicide or similar decisions are not celebrated but they are "favored" because the situation had no "hooray" options available. I think the specific detail you are touching on here is a common source of misunderstanding and results in people talking past each other.
Speaking personally, I advocate for "run away" rather than "stay and fight" for the same reason a doctor may advocate for letting someone terminally ill die rather than endure extreme suffering for a few days before still dying. The "run away" option has been chosen by victims of conflict all around the world, resulting in a UN estimate of ~43 million refugees today. If Hamas and the Arab world as a whole advocated for relocation, it would happen.
And just to reiterate, I view Palestinian relocation as a tragedy. But I view Palestinian "stay and fight" as significantly more tragic. Even though 2 state solutions and other such diplomatic situations are ideal and I'd love for them to happen, I think it is dishonest when people say they think they are even slightly possible.
How about Ukraine? Vietnam? Are / were those also cases where it would be / would've been preferable for people to just "relocate"?
I think these are good comparisons and. valid points. I apologize for being unclear. Since the point I was trying to make is supported by the situations in Vietnam and Ukraine, I will elaborate and try to clarify. In short, wars are generally just a measure of how much international support they manage to secure.
Vietnam: This was one of many "East vs West" proxy wars. USSR wanted to secure Vietnam as a member of their team and USA wanted to secure Vietnam as a member of their team. The natural revolution already taking place against France was a great opportunity for USSR to secure a new loyal ally by empowering their revolution against the West. Since USSR was highly motivated to secure Vietnam under their umbrella, they dumped a ton of resources into ensuring the revolutionaries succeeded in ejecting the west. USA was highly motivated to prevent USSR expansion and dumped a ton of resources into empowering the puppet government to prevent communism from spreading.
Since major world powers were highly motivated for their side of the proxy war to win, both South and North Vietnam had plenty of reason to keep fighting.
Ukraine: From a macroscopic perspective, mostly the same situation as Vietnam but with the roles reversed. Major world powers are fighting through Ukraine. Russia has plenty of reason to keep fighting because even if they fail to replace the western-aligned Ukrainian government, they can still bite off a chunk of Ukraine and its always possible western support will fade or fail to keep up. Similarly, Ukraine has plenty of reason to keep fighting because they are backed by a major world power. Even if Russia bites off a chunk of Ukraine, it currently appears extremely unlikely Ukraine's government will be replaced by a Russia-aligned government.
As was the case with Vietnam, each side of the conflict includes a major world power and they both have plenty of reason to keep fighting.
Palestine:Israel's formation kicked a bunch of Palestinians out Israel quickly crystallized into a new nation. Everyone in this thread has seen collections of maps highlighting Israeli expansion and Palestinian ejection. After various wars between "Team Israel" and "Team Palestine", Israel has grown in power to the extent that their long-term existence is not in question. Meanwhile, Palestinian suffering worsens every year. The past year has been among the worst ever for Palestinians. Social media has made it easy for the world to see all the carnage and suffering occurring in Gaza. And despite all the UN/ICJ stuff, Palestinians are mostly on their own other than Iran and their proxies. "Team Israel" is enormous and "Team Palestine" has no long-term viability. If anyone were to ever rush to the aid of Palestinians, it would have happened this past year. Arab nations have made their choice and its clear they don't care enough about Palestinians to put their necks out for them. Its just Iran. "Team Palestine" gets smaller and smaller while Israel continues to expand and squeeze out Palestinians.
If you are saying Palestinians ought to continue fighting because their *current* lives are better than fleeing as refugees, I can understand that. It appears likely the current situation will continue for a while at this pace so long as Iran continues to give their support. But I am advocating for Palestinians to flee as refugees because I am assuming their lives would be better as refugees. I think Palestinian suffering will worsen over time and never improve. Relating back to Ukraine and Vietnam, the muscle behind Israel is unbelievably huge compared to the muscle behind Palestine. Palestine is surviving, but deeply suffering. I just don't see value in sticking around when they are suffering to such an extreme with no hope of improvement.
Are you saying you think "Team Israel" will be weakened and "Team Palestine" will be strengthened? If so, that helps explain our disagreement. But I have not seen anyone explain how that could happen. "you never know" isn't reasonable when the odds are so wildly stacked against Palestinians. The current power structure is so crystallized and if anything Hezbollah's recent struggles highlight "Team Palestine" might be significantly weaker in the coming years.
So is it that you think the current Palestinian life in Gaza is better than being a refugee and building a new life elsewhere? Or is it that you think their lives will improve later?
I would like to response to this. Some of my point might be presented by Magic Power already, if it wasted your time, my apologies.
Disclaimer: I am not trying to articulate in the angle of morality. While I, like everyone else, have moral judgement on this issue, but I don't think I would be able add anything to this discussion, so I will leave it out for the moment.
The question of what the Palestinian should do in the current situation dependent on 2 major factors. 1, How well they do in the battefield, 2, what other option(s), in this case, accept being ethnic cleansed and move to somewhere else as refugee.
I will address point 2 first because it is more "simple", and "clearer" (when compared to what happened to the battlefield).
It is easy to suggest the palestinians should just leave the land of palestine and move to somewhere else. The question is: Where can they go? For the countries that adjacent to palestine, Both Jordan and Eygpt have explicit say that they will not accept any palestinian refugee. Eygpt even threaten Israel with war should Israel push the palestinian into Sinai, while Egypt did not do anything when Israel broken their peace treaty when putting the army in the Philadelphia Corridor. That is how unlikely / unwelcome the palestinian to those countries are. If the palestinian went to Lebanon, they are just going to get bombed by the Israel, not to mention the 1982 massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
As for going to Europe, or other Arab countries, did you saw any country said anything about welcoming palestinian refugee? We are not talking about taking in a few hundreds or thousands of them, it is hundreds of thousand or millions of them. The simple answer is no country would take the palestinian refugee. Then how can they go when no place they can go to?
If the palestinian actually to migrate to other place, they might as well find "a land with no people" and conduct a "nakba" of their own. In real terms, it is not going to happen. The palestinian will not be able to move to other places no matter as refugee or colonizing forces.
Now, come to what happen in the battlefield, this is where we most likely have a different perception of "fact". If I have not mis-read you completely, I would summaries your assessment of the battlefield as the Israelis is beating the hell out of the palestinian and Hezbollah. While there is no doubt both groups suffered losses, I believe the losses is less significant than what you implied when it comes to palestinian arm groups.
And more importantly, the Israelis had suffered (far) more casualties than they announced. The Israelis administration had go to great length to hide their casualty figure that even the Israelis press have hard time finding out / reporting the information.
Hezbollah suffered serious losses in the recent weeks, no doubt, and I am still waiting for the event to pan out to have a proper judgement of the situation. My feeling is that Iran will make sure Hezbollah will not completely disintegrate, and it is not that difficult. Hezbollah just need to be able to continue fire rocket at Israel, that is not too difficult a task. And even if the Israelis can push Hezbollah to the north of litani river, hezbollah can play the guerrilla warfare to the Israelis forces in the south of litani river, the same way Hamas is doing in gaza.
It might be easier for the Israelis to continue to bomb hezbollah's high ranking officials until its "mole" get to the top position, just saying.
But I believe, without a doubt, Hamas is still pretty much a functioning fighting force inside Gaza, that is why if you are careful, the Israelis have to go back to areas that they previously "cleared" again and again. Also, to this day, if you read / watch more pro-palestinian source, you will notice Hamas and other palestinian arm groups continue to fight the Israelis force, injuring and killing them.
Now, away from the "shooting match", Israel's economy is in bad shape,
and call up reservist into the army put a toll both in its commercial sector and the government's spending.
This war also weaken Israels diplomat situation. I am not talking about the ICJ / ICC, because while as "embarrassing" as that is, it is not hurting Israel, at least materially in the short term. However, it put a brake into its effort in normalising relationship with the Saudis Arabia, and postpone a possible India middle east economic corridor. This is going to hurt Israel's economy. On top of that, its currency had depreciated considerably and its credit rating dropped.
Things aren't looking too good for state of Israel. If I use martial art movie as an analogy, Israel is the one who looks like beating people up convincingly while suffering internal injury that others have not been able to observe.
That bring it back to the palestinian. For me, there are 2 questions in my mind: 1, is the palestinian army group / international community be able to break the israel blockade of essentials into gaza; 2, can the palestinian survive to see Israel cracks. Things not looking too bright for the palestinian, but given the lack of alternative, I don't see them having other way out.
On October 10 2024 06:20 Nebuchad wrote: Well it wasn't really directed at you, you just got here. But the past two pages have been about whether letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine was the best outcome in this situation, so I would expect the people who don't believe Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine to question the premise of this argument.
For the same reason I don't respond to the claim that there is a zionist quest for space, more lebensraum, for Jewish people. I have limited time and mental capacity to deal with nonsense. When the arguments are too ridiculous I skip over it entirely.
Except Zionists have explicitly stated and reaffirmed their intent for many generations. You're just choosing to remain oblivious.
The best proof, however, is Israel's actions. Take John Oliver's piece on the West bank which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israel is hell bent on stealing the West bank and giving it to Jewish people.
You don't even know what zionism is. The goal of zionism was the establishment of a Jewish state of mandatory palestine. If you're in favour of a two state solution you're a zionist. John Oliver is an entertainer not a serious source.
The comparison to Lebensraum is incredibly distasteful. Lebensraum is a explicitly racist policy that served as the basis for Generalplan Ost. A plan for genocide, extermination, and ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe.
Unfortunately for your narrative, Zionism is all about Lebensraum and Untermenschen.
On October 10 2024 05:28 Billyboy wrote: I think that if Israel wanted to do what Russia is doing than they would just do it, with way less resistance. I'm living under the assumption that Netanyahu is doing exactly what he wants.
So why aren't you telling this to KT_Elwood and Mohdoo? These guys are arguing that letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine is the best outcome, let them know that this isn't even what Israel wants to do.
Would love if Israel had to somehow make a truthful statement about what they saw as a long-term solution from their point of view. Can't be worse than "from the river to the sea", but could be pretty close if you ask me. But until we have that, both sides of this conflict are scum and I'm sorry so many resources go into this unsolvable dispute.
They've made plenty of statements. Things like this:
Right now, one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 1948.
Or this:
We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed.
They've also repeatedly stated that they have no plans for allowing an independent Palestinian state to exist, that they will continue to expand into and colonize West Bank, that they will reduce territory of Gaza as well.
They have also made many statements of peace over the years and even recently. There are peace rallies, antiwar rallies to go along with the other side. Unlike the other countries in the area they are a democracy and have the whole spectrum of positions. And for those that keep bringing up the far right, yes they exist, yes they are the current government, but they are also the most "left" of all countries in the area and the far right does not dominate the voting.
The 'they' I'm referring to are various members of Israel's government, including their PM, Netanyahu. Antiwar rallies are great, but I don't think the Palestinians that are getting shot, bombed, arrested, and starved care particularly much about that. The reality is, Israel has been oppressive and violent towards Palestine for as long as it existed and it really makes no difference how much more 'left' they are than their neighbors or how great freedom of expression in there is or whatever other great things you want to say about them -- Palestinians are still being oppressed.
Like, if anything, the fact that Israel is a democracy makes their regular citizens more complicit in the atrocities their state is carrying out. It's really confusing to me when posters like you and several others keep bringing up just how much more progressive, liberal, moral, and overall 'good' Israel is than Palestine or Iran or something. That's great and all, but how do you make the leap from 'Israel is a progressive democracy' to 'Israel should be allowed to oppress Palestine.' As far as I can tell, there's really no way to connect these two statements.
I have not made that leap, nor have most of the posters that have been accused of it. I think you have to ask yourself the question on why you think saying that Israel is more progressive than Iran means that a person would think oppressing someone else is OK.
That's because of the mechanics of conversation. If someone says that it's bad that Israel is oppressing Palestinians and in answer to this they receive the notion that Israel is more progressive than Iran, the logical assumption is that the person giving this answer thinks this is relevant to the topic of Israel oppressing Palestinians, otherwise they could have not mentioned it. If you agree that it isn't relevant to that topic, then my suggestion would be not to bring it up in response to that topic.
Bad conversation, it is over simplification when you have the opportunity to read everything that someone says. What you are describing has not happened.
What you are doing is the opposite side of the same coin of accusing everyone who says anything bad about Israel of supporting Hamas.
First of all, thank you for all the effort you are putting into this conversation. I'm enjoying it.
Since I have very little work to do right now, I am going to be extra thorough by first summarizing my impression of what you are saying. I hope this makes it easy for you to isolate any potential misunderstandings I have. I'll list out the general statements you are making in each chunk of your post. Then I'll use ">>>" to indicate my response.
On October 10 2024 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Palestinians don't have a choice. They can't mass migrate for the aforementioned reasons. Israel is massacring them, oppressing them, robbing them, all while knowing full well that Palestinians have no way out of their predicament. They can't escape it. This is what people don't understand who call for "realism". It is not realistic to relocate Palestinians from Gaza. It will continue to be a massacre until the war ends. They won't mass migrate because they don't have a place to migrate to. They won't mass migrate because they have too much worth fighting for. They won't mass migrate because they're not allowed to mass migrate. They won't mass migrate because they see no future elsewhere either. They won't mass migrate because too many of them would rather die. The exact same thing happened in plenty of other wars, and there aren't any good indicators that this war is somehow unique.
This is why I explained the reason behind Jewish people fleeing from Nazi Germany, mainly because they were being rounded up by the Nazis. I also explained (maybe in this thread, I'm not sure) a while back why black people didn't mass migrate from the US despite being oppressed as second class citizens. The level of oppression clearly wasn't severe enough for them to escape their circumstances. It proves that people are willing to endure a lot of hardship before most of them choose to flee. If people's lives are not immediately threatened, they often choose to stay. This is true even moreso if they have a cause worth fighting for.
You are listing out reasons Palestinians don't have the ability to flee:
1: There are no existing policies in other countries for Palestinians to be accepted as refugees
2: They don't see a benefit to migrating because they assume their lives won't be better in whatever other country they move to
3: Many Palestinians would rather die than migrate because they feel like Palestine is particularly significant and important from a cultural/religious perspective similar to Israelis
4: Their situation isn't bad enough to feel like fleeing is their only option. This relates to [2] where it all comes down to having too much to lose and not enough to gain from fleeing.
>>> You are right to point out Palestinians are always kept afloat just enough to not feel critically threatened. Hamas and Iran feed them disinformation saying Israel will be defeated soon and Palestinians will live happily ever after soon. If Hamas was handling it like Mexico handled their war with the US, Palestinians would feel less optimistic and they wouldn't feel like they have so much to lose. But instead they get a bunch of "here's how Bernie can still win!" style of propaganda to keep their motivation up and to keep the fight alive. We can't change their minds. The only factions with the power to shape Palestinian perspectives on the conflict are Hamas and Iran. You are right to point out that it is a silly fantasy for me to wish there was a way to help Palestinians understand they don't have any chance of victory.
On October 10 2024 23:04 Magic Powers wrote:
But if you do want me to tell you what I think is "better", and not what's "realistic". Here's what I think about that question. Historically, the winning side has shown to be neither the "good" or the "bad" side. That is disregarding that there is sometimes no good side, I'm just describing the outcome of wars. Both "good" and "bad" sides have frequently won wars. WW2 was won by the Allies, which I'd say was quite clearly the favorable outcome. If the Nazis had won, that would've been a huge injustice to many conquered countries and a constant threat to even more countries down the line. They had to be stopped at all cost because of the evil they were committing in the captured territories and in Germany, and because they posed a serious threat to other countries. And also because the Nazis were batshit insane, and you can't let batshit insane people grow into a superpower when the nuclear bomb was just around the corner. They would've become a batshit insane imperialist country hell bent on conquering the whole planet by use of the nuclear option. It would've been completely unthinkable, even the US would've had to be afraid of that monster.
So if we continue that logic, then the US, in supporting Israel, is supporting a fascist monster that is only about one or two steps removed from being exactly like Nazi Germany. They have imperialist ambitions in the Middle East, their words and actions prove it consistently, and they're willing to oppress and slaughter huge amounts of Untermenschen for their cause. Isn't that something. From opposing a fascist cause to supporting it. That's the arc the US underwent. So what you're saying is that, because this alliance is too powerful, therefore we shouldn't oppose it?
Your summary of the history of war and US involvement with fascist powers:
1: Sometimes good guys win wars. Sometimes bad guys win wars. Nazis were particularly evil and it forced the US to intervene.
>>>I agree.
2: The US went from opposing fascists to empowering fascists to serve their own interests.
>>>I agree.
3: Israel does a bunch of unethical stuff and the US empowers them to do that.
>>>I agree.
4: You are asking me if the overwhelming power of the US and Israel being totally unstoppable in this conflict means we ought to support the actions by the US and Israel in this conflict
>>>This might be a key breakdown in our communication and a reason we have been talking past each other. You should oppose it. I oppose it too. But we aren't a part of the conflict. To me, the more interesting and important topic is how Israelis and Palestinians ought to behave as members of the conflict. Everything I am saying is entirely separate from external perspectives. I see value in exchanging our views and perspectives, but I am never *arguing* per se because I don't view these discussions as a competition or power struggle or something. I have no incentive to change your mind and you have no incentive to change my mind. When I "argue", I am seeking the stimulation of learning about perspectives and understanding why people disagree with me. I am sorry if it ever comes across wrong.
On October 10 2024 23:04 Magic Powers wrote: Might is going to make right, yes? If that is the case, why did the world fight against Nazi Germany? Remember, the UK and France were practically alone in this. The US sent military aid but no troops. Russia was a mostly passive observer until Operation Barbarossa. France lost the war, there weren't many willing and capable to fight against Nazi Germany. The UK was practically alone, and yet they kept going. They did not surrender. And, I guess, they were only able to do so because they're an island.
Would you argue that the UK should've surrendered to Nazi Germany? Or Russia, when they got invaded? Or France? Or Poland? Or Romania? Or Austria? At which point comes the moment where opposition is the right choice? Maybe our incompetent fascist Austrian leadership should've tried to stop them? I think that would've been preferable. Was France right to resist? Was the UK right to resist? Considering Germany's track record, they were well on their way to conquering all of Europe. Should all the countries have just laid down their weapons?
You are summarizing the difficulty in accurately predicting when a conflict is truly lost rather than being at a major disadvantage:
1: The UK and France were both getting body slammed during WW2 but they did not surrender
2: It is difficult to say the moment when all hope is lost because Germany still lost WW2 despite appearing unstoppable
>>> The gist of my disagreement is measuring how screwed someone is in a war. We can't consider them all equivalent. There was a reason Native Americans surrendered during their war with the US. There was a reason Mexico surrendered. There was a reason Germany surrendered. There is a point when its not just "losing" but is instead "truly no path to victory". I am saying the past 80 years have only had a downward trend for Palestinians and their situation has gotten WAY worse in the last year. But like I said above, I understand why Palestinians don't understand how screwed they are. They are being brainwashed intentionally. They don't actually understand none of their goals are achievable.
On October 10 2024 06:20 Nebuchad wrote: Well it wasn't really directed at you, you just got here. But the past two pages have been about whether letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine was the best outcome in this situation, so I would expect the people who don't believe Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine to question the premise of this argument.
For the same reason I don't respond to the claim that there is a zionist quest for space, more lebensraum, for Jewish people. I have limited time and mental capacity to deal with nonsense. When the arguments are too ridiculous I skip over it entirely.
Except Zionists have explicitly stated and reaffirmed their intent for many generations. You're just choosing to remain oblivious.
The best proof, however, is Israel's actions. Take John Oliver's piece on the West bank which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israel is hell bent on stealing the West bank and giving it to Jewish people.
You don't even know what zionism is. The goal of zionism was the establishment of a Jewish state of mandatory palestine. If you're in favour of a two state solution you're a zionist. John Oliver is an entertainer not a serious source.
The comparison to Lebensraum is incredibly distasteful. Lebensraum is a explicitly racist policy that served as the basis for Generalplan Ost. A plan for genocide, extermination, and ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe.
Unfortunately for your narrative, Zionism is all about Lebensraum and Untermenschen.
That's outright antisemitism. You used to be more reasonable. Returning to this thread was a mistake.
@Mohdoo Honestly I can't find a single thing I meaningfully disagree with. The one disagreement that we might have is about the chances for the Palestinian dream, but you also mention that it's not really possible to accurately know their chances. Hope dies last. As long as they have hope, they will fight. Whether or not that will be enough until the critical moment is an impossible question to answer, but it's not looking good indeed. We both agree that they're completely cooked. Their "victory" would likely be mostly pyrrhic. They can make Israel pay, but can they win? Probably not. You also correctly state that they won't give up regardless of this fact. Pro-Palestinian propaganda is strong and it can't be stopped. It's akin to how Hitler ordered the Germans to fight until the last man falls. When Germany got counter-invaded, the Wehrmacht was getting obliterated over 90% of the time. It was a done deal. Hitler was completely delusional and he preferred that Germans would be eradicated rather than surrender. One of the reasons why Israel's offensive in Gaza is taking so long is the tunnel system (the same problem Israel will face in Lebanon). This is one of the big reasons why Hamas and its supporters still have hope. But there is another factor. I think the offensive has slowed down so much (it really has) in part because of the optics on the world stage. I very strongly suspect Netanyahu has accepted the fact that the optics are seriously weighing down on his war efforts. He needs the US and he knows how unhappy Biden is about this war. This is the one realistic hope that Palestinians have, the one hope that Hamas also has. This one issue is undeniable, Israel has lost support on the world stage, and if Kamala wins the coming election, it's not going to be as easy continuing to massacre civilians as when Trump wins.
On October 10 2024 06:20 Nebuchad wrote: Well it wasn't really directed at you, you just got here. But the past two pages have been about whether letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine was the best outcome in this situation, so I would expect the people who don't believe Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine to question the premise of this argument.
For the same reason I don't respond to the claim that there is a zionist quest for space, more lebensraum, for Jewish people. I have limited time and mental capacity to deal with nonsense. When the arguments are too ridiculous I skip over it entirely.
Except Zionists have explicitly stated and reaffirmed their intent for many generations. You're just choosing to remain oblivious.
The best proof, however, is Israel's actions. Take John Oliver's piece on the West bank which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israel is hell bent on stealing the West bank and giving it to Jewish people.
You don't even know what zionism is. The goal of zionism was the establishment of a Jewish state of mandatory palestine. If you're in favour of a two state solution you're a zionist. John Oliver is an entertainer not a serious source.
The comparison to Lebensraum is incredibly distasteful. Lebensraum is a explicitly racist policy that served as the basis for Generalplan Ost. A plan for genocide, extermination, and ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe.
Unfortunately for your narrative, Zionism is all about Lebensraum and Untermenschen.
That's outright antisemitism. You used to be more reasonable. Returning to this thread was a mistake.
No, it's not. Jews are people, Zionism is a nationalist ideology. Equating them would be like equating Germans to Nazism.
On October 11 2024 04:39 Magic Powers wrote: @Mohdoo Honestly I can't find a single thing I meaningfully disagree with. The one disagreement that we might have is about the chances for the Palestinian dream, but you also mention that it's not really possible to accurately know their chances. Hope dies last. As long as they have hope, they will fight. Whether or not that will be enough until the critical moment is an impossible question to answer, but it's not looking good indeed. We both agree that they're completely cooked. Their "victory" would likely be mostly pyrrhic. They can make Israel pay, but can they win? Probably not. You also correctly state that they won't give up regardless of this fact. Pro-Palestinian propaganda is strong and it can't be stopped. It's akin to how Hitler ordered the Germans to fight until the last man falls. When Germany got counter-invaded, the Wehrmacht was getting obliterated over 90% of the time. It was a done deal. Hitler was completely delusional and he preferred that Germans would be eradicated rather than surrender.
Aye, sounds good, and I agree with all this.
On October 11 2024 04:39 Magic Powers wrote: One of the reasons why Israel's offensive in Gaza is taking so long is the tunnel system (the same problem Israel will face in Lebanon). This is one of the big reasons why Hamas and its supporters still have hope. But there is another factor. I think the offensive has slowed down so much (it really has) in part because of the optics on the world stage. I very strongly suspect Netanyahu has accepted the fact that the optics are seriously weighing down on his war efforts. He needs the US and he knows how unhappy Biden is about this war. This is the one realistic hope that Palestinians have, the one hope that Hamas also has. This one issue is undeniable, Israel has lost support on the world stage, and if Kamala wins the coming election, it's not going to be as easy continuing to massacre civilians as when Trump wins.
I think its not a coincidence this massive Hezbollah dismantling took place a few months after Gaza started to slow down. I think their intelligence analysis indicated they had a real shot at taking down Hezbollah if they play their cards right and spend their political capital for one giant push into Hezbollah. I think the reality of this whole "Iran vs Israel" ordeal is that Hezbollah is 100% critical for Iran to remain a major power and a threat to Israel.
I would argue demilitarizing Gaza can't happen before Hezbollah is demilitarized. And Gaza isn't the focus or the goal. The goal is to destroy Iran's ability to project influence and empower proxies as a major military power in the middle east. Hezbollah is the linchpin for that. If Hezbollah is reduced to just another jihad dipshit Hamas'ish terrorist org, Israel will be able to dedicate way more focus to picking apart the IRGC as a whole and clearing out their whole proxy operation.
On October 11 2024 03:40 mounteast02 wrote: Things aren't looking too good for state of Israel. If I use martial art movie as an analogy, Israel is the one who looks like beating people up convincingly while suffering internal injury that others have not been able to observe.
I really can't see how you've come to this conclusion. Israel is not suffering serious damage to infrastructure or massive external migration so any economic downturn will be temporary. Moreover just as with Ukraine, economic assistance from the west will be forthcoming should the economic situation go bad.
The diplomatic side has been a huge win for Israel as well. Not long ago people were dooming on how the whole region will soon be on fire. Predictions ran from uprising in Jerusalem, intifada in the west bank, islamist coup in Egipt to regicide in Jordan. All that happened was suspended normalization talks (not even completely broken-off) and McDonald boycott.
As for turning Israel into a pariah state in the west, that's also clearly not happening. Not only do arms shipments from US continue unabated but apparently it's even become bad form to suggest using them as leverage. Nor are US voters overly concerned about escalating war despite Biden's policies. Latest polls show that Harris is leading the election race, including in Michigan despite the supposedly upset Arab minority there.
All of which are nowhere as important as the change in middle eastern power dynamics where the war has been Israel's greatest success. Hamas is done as a threat to Israel, it might still be able to occasionally lob a few missiles but it will never recover as a power of any sort. Chances are Hezbollah will be finished for at least a decade once the fighting in Lebanon is done and the Gaza question is resolved for at least a generation. The only thing missing is the cherry on top of regime collapse in Iran or an open license to colonize the west bank. But then we might still get there yet.
Hamas / Palestine don't have to 'win' against Israel. All they need to do is survive until the international community and the 'rules based order' gets their shit together and puts an end to Israel's ethnic cleansing project. Granted, given that it hasn't happened for half a century, it's a long shot, but surely that should be the outcome we should all be hoping for, and pushing our liberal and democratic governments towards?
When Allies occupied Germany, they didn't tell Germans to pack up and fuck off. They didn't demolish German homes and didn't arrest random civilians. The comparison to colonization of Americas is much more apt -- except, you know, just about every sane person living today agrees that the colonizers there weren't the good guys.
Yes. That happend during the war, because the germans were breeding ground for terror and the others were rightfully fed up with it.
And yes, kids got roped into military service.. and allied soldiers shot them, kids were working farms.. and allied soldiers shot them from tractors (because retreating de-mechanized wehrmacht also used farm equipment to move gear)
cities burned and everything sucked. But that's just aftermath of voting for Nazis.
Yes, colonization isn't great.. but it's done. And you dont put the rewind button on America.. Australia, South Africa.
Why the hell do you want to do that to Israel?
Aaand now it's also tripple dilema, since jews moving back from Europe to ther ancestoral home.. is what you wanted in the first place.
And where do you want to get the neanderthals when the modern humans need to go back to africa?
On October 10 2024 23:37 Billyboy wrote:You are right that Israel has been oppressive and violent towards Palestine, and the same is true in the other direction.
How is the same true in the other direction? When has Palestine been 'oppressive' towards Israel? Violence, sure, various Palestinian terrorist groups have been targeting Israelis for a long time -- but it's Israel who has been responding to any confrontation with overwhelming amounts of force, every single time. Palestinians do a banner protest, they tear gassed and arrested. They throw a rock at an armored vehicle, IDF responds with gunfire. Fatal casualties throughout the conflict are something like 20+ Palestinians for each Israeli killed, and that's without even considering the countless deaths caused by starvation and disease, the injuries, the property damage, etc. The two sides were never, ever anywhere remotely equal in the suffering they have inflicted on the other side.
On October 10 2024 23:37 Billyboy wrote:It is also factual that Palestinians have been oppressed for way longer than Israel exists, maybe forever?
No, it's not. They were not an independent state before, but they were certainly not oppressed -- by the standards of those times at least, and certainly not to the extent of the last several decades.
On October 10 2024 23:37 Billyboy wrote:It makes a huge difference for the people living within the borders. I'm sure all the women, gays and so on from all races, creeds and religions really appreciate it.
For Palestinians, the liberties of Israelis make no difference. The bombs and bullets they're receiving do.
On October 10 2024 23:37 Billyboy wrote:I have not made that leap, nor have most of the posters that have been accused of it. I think you have to ask yourself the question on why you think saying that Israel is more progressive than Iran means that a person would think oppressing someone else is OK.
If you don't think Israel being more progressive than Iran or Palestine makes oppressing them OK, then that point is entirely irrelevant to the discussion we are having. It has nothing to do with the topic so I don't see why would you bring it up. Similarly, the shittiness of the Hamas regime is hardly relevant as well -- them living under Sharia laws does not somehow justify Israel ethnically cleansing them, nor does the backwardness of their society give us the right to decide what is best for them. Anyway, societal changes brought forcefully from the outside barely ever work; plenty of past experiences to draw upon for this.
On October 10 2024 23:37 Billyboy wrote:As far as the evilness of the west supporting democracies. Didn't South Korea get a lot of support? Should have that not happened? Were no civilians killed? No one oppressed? Iran's ally North Korea feels differently.
South Korea was not a democracy when the West supported it against North Korea, and the 'support' it received had fuck all to do with lives of civilians or freeing people from oppression. At the time, the South was by far the more oppressive of the two regimes, not to mention the numerous assassinations carried out on behest of CIA taking out the leading nationalist politicians who had enough sway to actually see a united Korea happen. If anything, the Korean war, with all the death and destruction it had brought, happened because of US interventionism, so spare me the good guy Uncle Sam rhetoric.
On October 10 2024 23:37 Billyboy wrote:Things are not black and white, morality is not simple.
Sometimes it's not, and sometimes it is. Ethnic cleansing is pretty much as straightforward as it goes, ain't a good thing to do, no matter who is doing it. Stop trying to justify and handwave it away.
When Allies occupied Germany, they didn't tell Germans to pack up and fuck off. They didn't demolish German homes and didn't arrest random civilians. The comparison to colonization of Americas is much more apt -- except, you know, just about every sane person living today agrees that the colonizers there weren't the good guys.
Yes. That happend during the war, because the germans were breeding ground for terror and the others were rightfully fed up with it.
And yes, kids got roped into military service.. and allied soldiers shot them, kids were working farms.. and allied soldiers shot them from tractors (because retreating de-mechanized wehrmacht also used farm equipment to move gear)
cities burned and everything sucked. But that's just aftermath of voting for Nazis.
Yes, colonization isn't great.. but it's done. And you dont put the rewind button on America.. Australia, South Africa.
Why the hell do you want to do that to Israel?
Aaand now it's also tripple dilema, since jews moving back from Europe to ther ancestoral home.. is what you wanted in the first place.
And where do you want to get the neanderthals when the modern humans need to go back to africa?
Don't even know how to respond to the rest of your inane drivel, but ain't nobody here talking about pushing the rewind button on Israel. Simply telling them enough is enough and to leave Palestine alone would suffice. I don't see what is so controversial about that? If the colonization of Americas would be happening right now in the real time, would you tell me to stop being so mean to Cortez and just let him do his thing, too?
On October 11 2024 18:25 Salazarz wrote: Except Israel isn't interested in occupation and reeducation; they want to purge Palestine of Palestinians and take the land for themselves.
"GTFO you are sitting on top of hezbollah bunkers"
UN:
"No, we like it here"
"GTFO"
UN
"No"
*gets hit*
*autistic screaching*
The UN have now been attacked.
Personally I fully respect their right to defend themselves.
And by the way, the 'autstic screeching' you hear is actually the screeching of people being dismembered, maimed, burnt alive etc. by Israel, but okay.
EPT
