Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
15 minutes ago, statsman said:

I disagree that Israel is an apartheid state. It is formally a Jewish state, but Muslim and Christian citizens have all the rights Jews do, with the exception of institutional adjustment to the constraints of Judaism. It is a liberal democracy. 
 
South Africa was an apartheid state. Black South Africans, born in South Africa, had limited rights and liberties in almost every aspect. 
 
To call Israel an apartheid state, you have to argue that Palestinian refugees (born and residing outside the borders of Israel, in the WB, Gaza and other regions) are or should be citizens of Israel. Is that the argument? Isn’t this what the whole “right of return” is about?

It seems to me that Israel being an apartheid state is fully a matter of opinion- opinion over who should be a citizen or not. In my opinion, it isn’t. 
 
(Obviously, if the “right of return” were granted, after the first vote Israel would become an Islamic state and that would be that). 

You're a fucking unserious clownass.

  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, statsman said:

Well, I can’t argue with that…

When you stop making inherently dishonest arguments like claiming Israeli apartheid doesn't exist because it's not a 1-to-1 copy of South African apartheid, and compartmentalizing your argument to exclude occupied/administered territories, then maybe someone that isn't Rex will listen to you. Otherwise, fuck off and go back to lurking and drive by negging as is your usual practice.

Posted

Admit I don't have all the answers but isn't taking out leadership alone kinda like playing whac-a-mole? Stir up a hornets nest and soon enough new leaders emerge. However this time they are each bringing three of their buddies with them to join the cause.

Unless the goal is to provoke a strong enough retaliation for a 3D chess move? 

Posted

You take out a whole lotta experience, wisdom and tribal knowledge when you whack one of those shitbags.  Yeah is replacement is right there, but that guy isn't as good at killing Israeli civilians.  It's a net positive.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted (edited)
On 9/24/2024 at 10:55 PM, SL Xpress said:

But it will give a respite because of the loss of institutional knowledge.

2 hours ago, Parliament said:

You take out a whole lotta experience, wisdom and tribal knowledge when you whack one of those shitbags.  Yeah is replacement is right there, but that guy isn't as good at killing Israeli civilians.  It's a net positive.

Just look at what's happening in Russia with experienced Russian troops being lost early on - the amount of institutional knowledge that's been lost in the Russian Army is staggering, and we know the people coming into the Russian Army, whether conscripted or mobilized, have very little training these days (just look at how trashy their trenches are), and I can only imagine what things like vehicle maintenance are like.

Those Hamas and Hezbollah leaders being killed - those are the guys who know where the money comes from, where it needs to go, what is being stored where, who can be trusted, etc. Their replacements are going to come in, not knowing who they can trust and who might be an informant, and they aren't going to be comfortable moving around the various areas, tunnels/underground complexes, etc.  They'll stand out.

 

 

Edited by atomheartbevo
Posted
11 hours ago, Parliament said:

You take out a whole lotta experience, wisdom and tribal knowledge when you whack one of those shitbags.  Yeah is replacement is right there, but that guy isn't as good at killing Israeli civilians.  It's a net positive.

ISWYDT

Posted
On 9/25/2024 at 8:49 PM, Parliament said:

You take out a whole lotta experience, wisdom and tribal knowledge when you whack one of those shitbags.  Yeah is replacement is right there, but that guy isn't as good at killing Israeli civilians.  It's a net positive.

Feel like the main achievement accomplished is the generational conflict has been successfully passed down to the next generation. Hamas / Hezbollah may be defanged in the short term yes. But more popular than ever maybe?...And I'm worried about the United States reputation in the UN. 

Maybe I'm just ignorant and don't quite get it. That's possible.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

Feel like the main achievement accomplished is the generational conflict has been successfully passed down to the next generation. Hamas / Hezbollah may be defanged in the short term yes. But more popular than ever maybe?...And I'm worried about the United States reputation in the UN. 

Maybe I'm just ignorant and don't quite get it. That's possible.

 

 

They wont be more popular than ever with the Lebanese.  Hezbollah is Iran's baby and not very popular in general with most of the mid east.  It's hard to say how much of the population of palestine actually supports hamas and it's actions.  I find it hard to believe that the majority of palestinians are that dumb.  I think they wish they had a better alternative than hamas, but who is stepping up?  The war hawks are in charge everywhere you go over there, and as long as that is the case, Israel will just keep kicking ass.  

 

 

 

 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

The only way to combat terrorism is to aggressively root it out sans compassion. 

Now, apply that take to the hard right in Israel that has openly stated that it wants to wipe all Palestinians from the levant.

And see how fucked we are for a long, long, long time, because the current war is adding generations of fuel to the fire for the extremist elements on both sides.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

The most sensible and strategically sound decision Israel could make is to return settlers from the West Bank and unilaterally declare the existence of a Palestinian state inside internationally recognized borders. Hand over the details of what comes next to Arab neighbors, seal the border, and respond with overwhelming force to any attacks emanating from that territory but otherwise wash their hands and walk away. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The most sensible and strategically sound decision Israel could make is to return settlers from the West Bank and unilaterally declare the existence of a Palestinian state inside internationally recognized borders. Hand over the details of what comes next to Arab neighbors, seal the border, and respond with overwhelming force to any attacks emanating from that territory but otherwise wash their hands and walk away. 

Their goal is to take all that land for themselves, no matter how many people they have to kill or displace. that's the strategy. It's not going to change. I don't necessarily disagree with you.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Their goal is to take all that land for themselves, no matter how many people they have to kill or displace. that's the strategy. It's not going to change. I don't necessarily disagree with you.

I’m glad we have you with your special intelligence giving us live accurate updates with absolute authority! We are surly a lucky group!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

No I won’t apply it because it’s apples and oranges, and you know it, and anyone who engages with you on this particular thread needs to say nothing more than that.

Nothing Israel is doing is adding any more fuel.  On the total fucking contrary, they’re having massive military and intel success, and they’ve got these savages in absolute fear. Anyone associated with Hamas or Hezbollah needs to die. Kill. Them. All. When Hamas II rears its head, kill them all. 

dazed-and-confused-okay.gif

If you don't want to take an objective, expansive view, and instead just want to jack off in your bloodlust, just say so and be done with it.

What Israel continues to do in the West Bank alone refutes what I bolded.

None of us have a particular problem with Israeli decapitation actions against Hamas and Hezbollah leadership.  The ongoing fuckery in the West Bank (happening in the background and getting much less viewing because of the greater drama in Gaza and Lebanon) puts a lie to what I bolded.  Israel should stop that shit.  Israel could and should take an approach that 1) if you are militants, we will kill you, but 2) if you are civilians, we won't fuck you and will act to protect you.  Regarding the WB, that sure as shit isn't what's happening.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Sounds good on paper. Questions: 

(1) Where is this Palestinian state?

(2) Will Palestinians ever go for it?

(3) Does their border touch Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon or Syria?

Answer: No longer Israel’s problem.   They want a state: give it to them and then treat that state like any other that launches attacks on a more powerful neighbor.  
 

Israel would be far more justified and supported internationally if it was acting in self-defense against a Palestinian state.  The narrative shifts and all of a sudden you can’t hide real motives. It would also channel local anger outside of Israel.  A newly formed state that meets stated Arab nation demands and that is dependent on said nations for support is the last thing those countries really want. 
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
8 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

They’d never be able to shift the narrative because the Palestinians would never agree to it. This is why I asked the specific questions I asked. Answering them is crucial to your plan. 

I am fairly sanguine about the fact that a future Palestinian independent political entity will remain dangerous to Israel. My plan takes away their most useful weapon: sympathy based on a fairly persuasive argument that Israel poses as the region’s stable rule-follower but flouts international norms. 
 

You’ll note that I said “unilateral.”  The Palestinians don’t get a vote.  In effect, the following letter to the international community:

“Dear International Community:

We agree with your long-held contention that Palestinians should have a state within internationally recognized borders.  Effective tomorrow, they have one.  Our only conditions are that Palestinians now sort out their affairs with themselves and the international community and remain within their universally recognized borders.

Moving forward, our relations with the new Palestinian state are the responsibility of the Palestinian government.  We are happy to establish an embassy and discuss our differences and shared goals.  We are equally happy to resolve future differences via JDAMS.  The choice is Palestine’s- and yours.”

The Romans had an obsession with “scientific” defensible frontiers. For a state like Israel, scientific frontiers are political as well as physical.  Israel needs to establish scientific defensible borders and secure Western/US support for generations while punting the Palestine question to the Arab world. 
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
49 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Answer: No longer Israel’s problem.   They want a state: give it to them and then treat that state like any other that launches attacks on a more powerful neighbor.  
 

Israel would be far more justified and supported internationally if it was acting in self-defense against a Palestinian state.  The narrative shifts and all of a sudden you can’t hide real motives. It would also channel local anger outside of Israel.  A newly formed state that meets stated Arab nation demands and that is dependent on said nations for support is the last thing those countries really want. 
 

 

 

19 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I am fairly sanguine about the fact that a future Palestinian independent political entity will remain dangerous to Israel. My plan takes away their most useful weapon: sympathy based on a fairly persuasive argument that Israel poses as the region’s stable rule-follower but flouts international norms. 
 

You’ll note that I said “unilateral.”  The Palestinians don’t get a vote.  In effect, the following letter to the international community:

“Dear International Community:

We agree with your long-held contention that Palestinians should have a state within internationally recognized borders.  Effective tomorrow, they have one.  Our only conditions are that Palestinians now sort out their affairs with themselves and the international community and remain within their universally recognized borders.

Moving forward, our relations with the new Palestinian state are the responsibility of the Palestinian government.  We are happy to establish an embassy and discuss our differences and shared goals.  We are equally happy to resolve future differences via JDAMS.  The choice is Palestine’s- and yours.”

The Romans had an obsession with “scientific” defensible frontiers. For a state like Israel, scientific frontiers are political as well as physical.  Israel needs to establish scientific defensible borders and secure Western/US support for generations while punting the Palestine question to the Arab world. 
 

 

Obviously this couldn't happen overnight, but I don't really disagree with what you're saying here. Does Israel foot the bill to rebuild all of the infrastructure they destroyed?

Posted
4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

 

Obviously this couldn't happen overnight, but I don't really disagree with what you're saying here. Does Israel foot the bill to rebuild all of the infrastructure they destroyed?

I’d say all questions about that get punted to whether a future Palestine wants JDAMS or an embassy.  The whole point here is to make this other people’s problems. Pull the Band-Aid.

There are some very wealthy states that claim to have solidarity with Palestine so start there for funding. 

Posted
1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’d say all questions about that get punted to whether a future Palestine wants JDAMS or an embassy.  The whole point here is to make this other people’s problems. Pull the Band-Aid.

There are some very wealthy states that claim to have solidarity with Palestine so start there for funding. 

I get what you're saying but I would guess that saying "lol it's all yours now" after you've already leveled a great deal of the infrastructure is not exactly going to win Israel any points in the international community. That argument you referenced with regard to Israel posing as the stable rule-follower but not really living up to that is not going to get any less persuasive.

It certainly wouldn't reduce the risk of violence. It would just cause a desperate population to become even more desperate.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I get what you're saying but I would guess that saying "lol it's all yours now" after you've already leveled a great deal of the infrastructure is not exactly going to win Israel any points in the international community. That argument you referenced with regard to Israel posing as the stable rule-follower but not really living up to that is not going to get any less persuasive.

It certainly wouldn't reduce the risk of violence. It would just cause a desperate population to become even more desperate.

In that case Israel can send a bill for the cost of developing and deploying Iron Dome and call it even Steven. 
 

Although you are making my subtle point that nothing will ever be satisfactory. Are you saying that the Arab and Muslim world won’t step up to help the desperate population? 

Posted

Anyway, the question of “who rebuilds” would be irrelevant. A new Palestine would be the darling of the Norways and Irelands and other rich nations of the world.  They’d be falling over themselves to distribute largesse.

The sole question would be the new entity’s willingness to use it for infrastructure and not bombs and a willingness to set aside the symbolic demands of “Israel has to pay or it doesn’t count.” 
 

Open question on both. 

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

In that case Israel can send a bill for the cost of developing and deploying Iron Dome and call it even Steven. 
 

Although you are making my subtle point that nothing will ever be satisfactory. Are you saying that the Arab and Muslim world won’t step up to help the desperate population? 

I understand the point you're trying to make, but you're staking out a starting point that is simply entirely unreasonable and saying "See????? Nothing can be good enough!" when it's inevitably rejected by the international community. It's not a compelling argument and neither is the circular one you are presenting in the first sentence.

If Israel cared to do what you're proposing they could have done it literally decades ago.

e: But we both know the overall goal is to steal all that land and kill and/or displace anyone who holds out.

Edited by Brian Fantana
Posted
1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

I understand the point you're trying to make, but you're staking out a starting point that is simply entirely unreasonable and saying "See????? Nothing can be good enough!" when it's inevitably rejected by the international community. It's not a compelling argument and neither is the circular one you are presenting in the first sentence.

If Israel cared to do what you're proposing they could have done it literally decades ago.

I am laying out what they should do and  not what they have done and you are very effectively showing that the goal posts will always move.  But you are wrong, many nations would be very happy for Palestine to simply be an Arab/Muslim/UN problem tomorrow and be relieved of legalistic arguments to throttle support for Israel’s defense. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Anyway, the question of “who rebuilds” would be irrelevant. A new Palestine would be the darling of the Norways and Irelands and other rich nations of the world.  They’d be falling over themselves to distribute largesse.

The sole question would be the new entity’s willingness to use it for infrastructure and not bombs and a willingness to set aside the symbolic demands of “Israel has to pay or it doesn’t count.” 
 

Open question on both. 

Yeah you're probably right about that, and I personally wouldn't care who paid but my guess is the international community wouldn't respond positively to the scenario you're putting forward is all.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yeah you're probably right about that, and I personally wouldn't care who paid but my guess is the international community wouldn't respond positively to the scenario you're putting forward is all.

They would. No one wants Serbia to pay a bunch of money to Kosovo or Bosnia, they just want them to stop being assholes. I am excluding a set of nations here that will never be satisfied until a Jewish state is wiped from the face of the earth. A side benefit of my plan is that this would put that fact in stark relief. 

Posted
1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

They would. No one wants Serbia to pay a bunch of money to Kosovo or Bosnia, they just want them to stop being assholes. I am excluding a set of nations here that will never be satisfied until a Jewish state is wiped from the face of the earth. A side benefit of my plan is that this would put that fact in stark relief. 

You might be right, honestly, it's just a shame that none of it will ever happen because we both know what the actual goal is.

9 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

many nations would be very happy for Palestine to simply be an Arab/Muslim/UN problem tomorrow

Considering that the Western world has spent the decades since WWII working very hard (and very successfully, I might add) to shift the blame for the Holocaust and the many pogroms that occurred in non-Arab nations entirely onto Palestinians and the Arab world, I certainly cannot disagree with this statement at all.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

You might be right, honestly, it's just a shame that none of it will ever happen because we both know what the actual goal is.

Considering that the Western world has spent the decades since WWII working very hard (and very successfully, I might add) to shift the blame for the Holocaust and the many pogroms that occurred in non-Arab nations entirely onto Palestinians and the Arab world, I certainly cannot disagree with this statement at all.

Absolutely nonsense framing and a good example of inhabiting an alternate reality. Please provide a solitary example of a Western nation blaming the Arab world for the Holocaust or any pogroms (except for the Arab’s entirely “Anti-Zionist” actions to destroy millennial-old Jewish communities as a completely not anti-Semitic response to Israel’s establishment). Just one case of a Western government blaming the Arabs for the Holocaust will suffice. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I am fairly sanguine about the fact that a future Palestinian independent political entity will remain dangerous to Israel. My plan takes away their most useful weapon: sympathy based on a fairly persuasive argument that Israel poses as the region’s stable rule-follower but flouts international norms. 
 

You’ll note that I said “unilateral.”  The Palestinians don’t get a vote.  In effect, the following letter to the international community:

“Dear International Community:

We agree with your long-held contention that Palestinians should have a state within internationally recognized borders.  Effective tomorrow, they have one.  Our only conditions are that Palestinians now sort out their affairs with themselves and the international community and remain within their universally recognized borders.

Moving forward, our relations with the new Palestinian state are the responsibility of the Palestinian government.  We are happy to establish an embassy and discuss our differences and shared goals.  We are equally happy to resolve future differences via JDAMS.  The choice is Palestine’s- and yours.”

The Romans had an obsession with “scientific” defensible frontiers. For a state like Israel, scientific frontiers are political as well as physical.  Israel needs to establish scientific defensible borders and secure Western/US support for generations while punting the Palestine question to the Arab world. 
 

 

How is this different than pulling out of Gaza in 2005?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, statsman said:

How is this different than pulling out of Gaza in 2005?

Israel did not recognize a Palestinian state, they just left and continued to let Gaza/WB occupy a legal gray zone.  This solution is to just leave, wash your hands, and solidify U.S. military and political support for generations. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Israel did not recognize a Palestinian state, they just left and continued to let Gaza/WB occupy a legal gray zone.  This solution is to just leave, wash your hands, and solidify U.S. military and political support for generations. 

I think thats a distinction without a difference. 
 
Israel left Gaza, the PA held an election, Hamas won, the UNRWA gives a bunch of money that enriches terrorist leaders and buys tunnels (not weapons; Iran gives them for free). Israel provides utilities and medical care (Egypt provides neither), and in return the Gazans hate them and the world pilloried them. I don’t see how writing the letter you composed would make anything different. 
 
I think the last  thing this world needs is another authoritarian and aggressive state. How about this- the Palestinian people organize into a liberal democracy (there are a lot of examples) and then they get a state?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Absolutely nonsense framing and a good example of inhabiting an alternate reality. Please provide a solitary example of a Western nation blaming the Arab world for the Holocaust or any pogroms (except for the Arab’s entirely “Anti-Zionist” actions to destroy millennial-old Jewish communities as a completely not anti-Semitic response to Israel’s establishment). Just one case of a Western government blaming the Arabs for the Holocaust will suffice. 

First, I do not deny at all the pogroms that occurred in the Arab world and antisemitic retaliations that occurred in the wake of Israel's establishment, nor the level of antisemitism present in the Arab world. It's all fucking gross.

Second, I could not have possibly worded what I said in a worse way. What I meant to say is: The Western world has successfully shifted its guilt for the crimes of the Holocaust et al away from itself and a colonized Palestine is poor restitution for said crimes. Making Palestine entirely the problem of the Arab world would just be the Western world's final act of washing their hands of all that. I would say Israel agrees, considering their goals are very clearly to ethnically cleanse all of occupied Palestine and absorb it into Israel.

I certainly agree that your scenario would definitely be better than that, at least.

Posted

For what it's worth @956 Worldwide, I wholeheartedly endorse your plan, as it's essentially the stance I've held from the beginning.

Since the various parties can't seem to get along, they should all stay on their own side of the 1967 line. Any acts of aggression beyond that line (including blockades like the Israelis had over Gaza @statsman) should be rejected by the international community and the aggressor gets punished with impunity, regardless of who the bad actor is. It makes the state of affairs clear and unambiguous; everyone knows the rules and respects one another's full sovereignty. If you can't abide by those rules, you can get fucked.

I'm even fine if Israel doesn't help with rebuilding. After all, they'll have lost all their investments to the Palestinian State in housing and infrastructure in the West Bank to serve the settlements. And, as you said, there is no shortage of countries that would be happy to help the Palestinians rebuild.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, statsman said:

I think thats a distinction without a difference. 
 
Israel left Gaza, the PA held an election, Hamas won, the UNRWA gives a bunch of money that enriches terrorist leaders and buys tunnels (not weapons; Iran gives them for free). Israel provides utilities and medical care (Egypt provides neither), and in return the Gazans hate them and the world pilloried them. I don’t see how writing the letter you composed would make anything different. 
 
I think the last  thing this world needs is another authoritarian and aggressive state. How about this- the Palestinian people organize into a liberal democracy (there are a lot of examples) and then they get a state?

I think ideally I am with you, but it’s a non-ideal world. And that the minutiae of international law does have an impact. For a lot of countries, it’s a real difference. Announcing acceptance and recognition of a Palestinian state unlocks a lot of real tools and more than that places responsibility for governance and security firmly within multilateral structures.  Purely from a self-interest standpoint, multinational forces and neighbors begin to absorb the brunt of Palestinian anger and Israel is not physically overextended by trying to defend settlements it doesn’t really want or need. Israel cannot and will not truly seize and defend Gaza or WB and the status quo is less preferable to giving them up and then defending recognized borders. 
 

I don’t agree on a lot with Fantana here,  but it’s domestic politics and not strategic interest guiding Israeli behavior here. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, bolverk said:

For what it's worth @956 Worldwide, I wholeheartedly endorse your plan, as it's essentially the stance I've held from the beginning.

Since the various parties can't seem to get along, they should all stay on their own side of the 1967 line. Any acts of aggression beyond that line (including blockades like the Israelis had over Gaza @statsman) should be rejected by the international community and the aggressor gets punished with impunity, regardless of who the bad actor is. It makes the state of affairs clear and unambiguous; everyone knows the rules and respects one another's full sovereignty. If you can't abide by those rules, you can get fucked.

I'm even fine if Israel doesn't help with rebuilding. After all, they'll have lost all their investments to the Palestinian State in housing and infrastructure in the West Bank to serve the settlements. And, as you said, there is no shortage of countries that would be happy to help the Palestinians rebuild.

You say “blockade”. Isn’t a better description “inspecting approaching ships for weapons from Iran”?

If there were no weapons from Iran coming to Gaza, do you think Israel would still insist on boarding approaching ships? I guess we’ll never know…

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...