Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Hitch said:

Hamas starting a war with Israel was a truly awful, awful idea. Even for those idiots. 

Maybe not in their eyes. It showed the world what Israel would do vs. what they told the world they would not do.

Hamas is there still. Yeah they lost manpower, but how many new recruits do they gain? Israel? Only those who already liked the IDF will back the IDF.

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

A mob of Israeli citizens, INCLUDING MPs, stormed army bases to free them.  There is a SIZEABLE movement in Israeli society that likes, celebrates, and wants more atrocities against Palestinians.  Sorry, putting the white hat on Israel makes you a fucking liar.

And again, I say this as someone who thinks that Hamas is evil, vile, giant pieces of shit.

Well, of course. Remember how we were after our own 9/11. A sizable portion of our country also said very dumb things. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Hitch said:

Again, there’s investigations and arrests. They’re not building statues of them. You just can’t compare the two unfortunately. 

Ever heard of Ariel Sharon?

c8253.jpg

Posted
10 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Ever heard of Ariel Sharon?

c8253.jpg

Of course, he was Prime Minister. Although I remember the other statue more of him lying in a hospital bed after his stroke. Oof, people did NOT like that one. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Hitch said:

Of course, he was Prime Minister. Although I remember the other statue more of him lying in a hospital bed after his stroke. Oof, people did NOT like that one. 

It saddens me, too, when war criminals have to suffer the consequences of old age.

Posted
17 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It saddens me, too, when war criminals have to suffer the consequences of old age.

Well, we all do. Although I have to say, kicking all of the middle east’s ass is a hell of an accomplishment. Especially when, and stop me of you’ve heard this before, Israel was attacked on a holy day. 

Posted
22 minutes ago, Hitch said:

Well, we all do. Although I have to say, kicking all of the middle east’s ass is a hell of an accomplishment. Especially when, and stop me of you’ve heard this before, Israel was attacked on a holy day. 

If you consider murdering a thousand innocent civilians in a refugee camp as "kicking ass," congratulations, you're celebrating a terrorist and war criminal.

If you consider expanding illegal settlements on stolen land in occupied territories an "accomplishment," congratulations, you're celebrating a terrorist and a war criminal.

1 hour ago, Hitch said:

Yes, I saw the soldiers accused of that atrocity also be arrested. You’ll notice that doesn’t happen on the other side. In fact, they’re actually regarded as heroes. 

You know, it sounds like you actually regard Sharon as a hero. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, bolverk said:

If you consider murdering a thousand innocent civilians in a refugee camp as "kicking ass," congratulations, you're celebrating a terrorist and war criminal.

If you consider expanding illegal settlements on stolen land in occupied territories an "accomplishment," congratulations, you're celebrating a terrorist and a war criminal.

You know, it sounds like you actually regard Sharon as a hero. 

He does.  See, when Israel commits atrocities, it's actually a GOOD thing, because Hamas has committed worse atrocities.  So long as the other side did something worse, not only is anything you do okay, it's actually GOOD, because the other side is bad.

Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

If you consider murdering a thousand innocent civilians in a refugee camp as "kicking ass," congratulations, you're celebrating a terrorist and war criminal.

If you consider expanding illegal settlements on stolen land in occupied territories an "accomplishment," congratulations, you're celebrating a terrorist and a war criminal.

You know, it sounds like you actually regard Sharon as a hero. 

There seems to be a trend of attacking Israel and then getting your ass kicked. Maybe they should stop. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

If you consider murdering a thousand innocent civilians in a refugee camp as "kicking ass," congratulations, you're celebrating a terrorist and war criminal.

If you consider expanding illegal settlements on stolen land in occupied territories an "accomplishment," congratulations, you're celebrating a terrorist and a war criminal.

You know, it sounds like you actually regard Sharon as a hero. 

Also, I don’t think he’s a hero. But he was a prime minister and a bust of him at an airport seems rather innocuous. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Israel has the high ground by a long shot. The constant equivalence by you and others is tiresome. There is no ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The constant hand wringing by you and others makes yall a joke. 

image.jpeg.ae84f5d816198c99448b51b9eeca5b4f.jpeg

Posted
Just now, Rex Kramer said:

You (and plenty of others, particularly Palestine supporters) have a liberal and frankly retarded definition of ethnic cleansing. Any time I hear Israel being accused of ethnic cleansing, I laugh and immediately dismiss the person. 

You're basically a holocaust denier, congratulations dipshit. You and PRONG HORN are the only ones left on the board that even make this claim.

Posted
1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

You (and plenty of others, particularly Palestine supporters) have a liberal and frankly retarded definition of ethnic cleansing. Any time I hear Israel being accused of ethnic cleansing, I laugh and immediately dismiss the person. 

Well, being that your definition of ethnic cleansing is "total genocide, and only total genocide," I'm quite glad not to be stuck on your short bus.

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

Not my definition, but whatever. Israel isn’t engaged in ethnic cleansing. It’s an absurd notion. It’s not worth discussing with you. You’re a joke. 

I mean....I don't even need to dig deep.  It's the fucking basic Wikipedia definition:

"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making the society ethnically homogeneous."

And your position is that there haven't been systematic forced removals of Palestinians from areas where they have lived in the West Bank.

I am perfectly good where we stand.  And again, that I get lumped in as a Hamas apologist or some shit only tells me how fucking ridiculous you are.  I continue to be incredibly comfortable with what I have observed and concluded.  I'm not the guy trying to jam a white hat on anyone's head around here.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

The UN has provided at least two definitions of ethnic cleansing:

  • "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area."
  • “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”
Quote

 

The Commission of Experts also stated that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others.

The Commission of Experts added that these practices can “… constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.”
https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition

 

One can argue extenuating circumstances, explanations, justifications, and excuses until the end of time, but like it or not, displacing Palestinians from their land IS the history of Israel. In fact, that's been the entire point from the very beginning: carving out a chunk of land for a single ethno-religious group.

And the Israelis are very accomplished (with a whole lot of help from the US) in doing just that.

 

Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Guess you missed the part where Israeli protestors, including multiple members of parliament stormed the army base where those accused soldiers were in custody, insisting that they be set free.

 

Were they set free?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Were they set free?

2 of them were after formal investigations. There is no such process on the other side. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 1/24/2025 at 2:41 PM, Rex Kramer said:

There is no ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump-says-wants-clean-gaza-move-palestinians-jordan-egypt-rcna189317

“I’d rather get involved with some of the Arab nations and build housing at a different location where they can maybe live in peace for a change,” Trump said to reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday.

“You’re talking about probably a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing and say, ‘You know, it’s over,’” he added.

Posted
31 minutes ago, Chopper said:

I don't know if this is the right thread for this but -maybe the only maneuver Netanyahu has left to try to stay in power, idk.

 

 

I can't see how Israel, the US, and Saudi Arabia can allow Iran to obtain nukes and improve their missile technology via Russia. It's coming and needs to happen before Iran can regroup and resupply Hezbollah and Hamas. First they will try negotiating, though.

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-said-set-to-tap-mideast-envoy-steve-witkoff-as-iran-point-man/

Trump says ‘would be nice’ to solve Iranian nuclear crisis without Israeli strikes

US president reportedly set to tap Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff as Iran point man, signaling turn away from ‘maximum pressure’ policy of 1st term: ‘Certainly somebody I would use’

By Jacob Magid,

US President Donald Trump on Thursday said he hopes the Iranian nuclear crisis can be solved without Israel having to carry out a military strike against the Islamic Republic.

The remarks came after it was reported that Trump is planning to name his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff as his point man on Iran, signaling the new administration’s resolve to address Tehran’s nuclear program diplomatically rather than militarily.

“I’m not going to answer that,” Trump first replied when asked by reporters in the Oval Office whether he would support an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, adding that he would be holding meetings with various senior officials on the matter shortly.

“Hopefully that can be worked out without having to worry about it. It would really be nice if that could be worked out without having to go that further step,” Trump continued.

“Iran will hopefully make a deal, and if they don’t make a deal that’s okay too,” he said.

His administration has signaled in recent days that it wants to try and reach a diplomatic agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear program, rather than carrying out a military strike.

There had been some in Israel who assumed that Trump’s return to the White House would lead to the US backing an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites or even carrying out such an attack itself.

Trump had criticized his predecessor Joe Biden for publicly telling Israel not to strike Iranian oil and nuclear sites in retaliation for Tehran’s ballistic missile attack last year. Trump had argued that Biden shouldn’t be publicly telegraphing Israel’s next move.

Senior Trump officials were earlier quoted by Channel 12 news as saying the new US president “doesn’t want to kick off his term with a war,” is interested in a “firm deal” to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear arms, and assesses that “the Iranians will run to the negotiating table under his leadership.”
Witkoff ‘certainly somebody I would use’

Trump on Thursday also addressed the Gaza hostage release and ceasefire deal he helped finalize, saying it “should hold.”

The comments appeared to soften ones he made earlier in the week, when he said he was not confident that the agreement would hold.

Asked to elaborate on those comments, Trump told reporters, “It’s a very tricky place.”

Trump credited his envoy Witkoff for securing the agreement that had been elusive for months. Noting that “both sides” liked Witkoff, Trump said, “That deal would have never been made without Steve.”

“The deal should hold, but if it doesn’t there will be a lot of problems,” Trump warned.

Trump was also asked whether he’ll want Witkoff to be negotiating directly with Iran, amid the reports that he was planning to have him handle US diplomacy with Tehran.

“No, but he’s certainly somebody I would use,” Trump said.

The Financial Times had reported that Witkoff, known for his central role bringing the Gaza ceasefire deal to a conclusion, will oversee efforts to tackle Iran’s nuclear ambitions as part of a broader attempt to curb conflicts in the region, adding that the ceasefire agreement will remain Witkoff’s main focus.

News of Witkoff’s tentative appointment came as Trump revoked the security detail of two prominent Iran hawks from his previous administration: former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Iran envoy Brian Hook, both of whom were considered under threat by Iran.

Pompeo and Hook were the public faces of the US “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign against Iran after Trump in 2018 withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal. The deal, signed in 2015, offered relief on sanctions in exchange for Iran’s drastically limiting its nuclear program.

In response to Trump’s withdrawal, Tehran, which is sworn to destroy Israel, has breached the deal in several ways, including by accelerating its uranium enrichment to levels that are unfeasible for civilian use.

Iran also operates an “Axis of Resistance” network of anti-Israel regional proxies, including Gaza’s Hamas, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthis, and has struck Israel directly twice in the past year.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, a top Iranian official who was Tehran’s lead negotiator on the 2015 deal, said Wednesday that he hopes “this time around, a ‘Trump 2’ will be more serious, more focused, more realistic.”

Though Trump has publicly vowed to resume “maximum pressure” on Iran, the Financial Times said that the US president and his aides have indicated in meetings that they want to keep the door open to diplomacy with the Islamic Republic.

According to the newspaper, some Trump officials have told foreign counterparts that they expect Witkoff to check whether diplomacy with Iran was possible.

However, US officials cited by the newspaper said that Trump’s approach to Iran in his second term, and Witkoff’s mandate vis-a-vis the Islamic Republic, were not yet settled.

A senior Republican staffer in the US Congress, quoted by the Financial Times, expressed frustration at Witkoff’s appointment, saying the new Iran point man was not hawkish enough.

“He’s already lifting pressure on Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, and in the process abandoning American hostages and endangering Israel,” said the aide — though the White House on Thursday re-designated the Houthis as a terror group.

“He keeps saying he knows what Trump wants, but he doesn’t understand what Trump believes,” the aide added.
US President Donald Trump speaks in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on January 21, 2025, in Washington, DC. (Jim Watson/AFP)

The Financial Times noted that two of Trump’s appointments — Michael DiMino, the Pentagon’s new top Middle East official, and Elbridge Colby, nominated for under-secretary of defense for policy — have expressed skepticism over the use of military force to thwart Iran’s nuclear program.

A more robust approach, meanwhile, has been advocated by Trump’s designated national security adviser, Michael Waltz, and new US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The top diplomat, who was confirmed on Wednesday, said in a phone call with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later in the day that “he looks forward to addressing the threats posed by Iran and pursuing opportunities for peace,” according to a State Department readout.

A congressional staffer and a person familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss personal security details, confirmed Thursday that Trump had revoked Pompeo and Hook’s security details.

Neither source could offer an explanation. They said Pompeo and Hook were told of the loss of protection on Wednesday and that it took effect at 11 p.m. that night.
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks at the annual leadership meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition, November 18, 2022, in Las Vegas, Nevada. (AP Photo/John Locher)

A day earlier, Trump had revoked the security clearance and Secret Service protection from John Bolton, another Iran hawk who was fired as Trump’s national security adviser during his first term.

Bolton, who has been targeted for assassination for Iran, later wrote a book whose publication the White House unsuccessfully sought to block on grounds that it disclosed national security information.

Trump had soured on Pompeo some months ago, saying publicly that he would play no role in his new administration. In a social media post this week, Trump also fired Hook from his presidentially appointed position on the board of the Wilson Center, a think tank.

A representative for Pompeo did not immediately reply to a request for comment, and Hook has not responded to multiple voice and text messages from the AP since Bolton was stripped of his protection on Tuesday.

The New York Times first reported on the loss of protections.

The Biden administration’s State Department had provided and then systematically renewed round-the-clock protection by the Diplomatic Security Service for Pompeo and Hook since January 21, 2021, when they left office along with Trump. The last such authorization was on October 21.

Iran has blamed both for the killing of Iran Revolutionary Guard commander Qassem Soleimani on January 3, 2020.

According to a March 2022 report to Congress, the State Department said it was paying more than $2 million per month to provide 24-hour security to Pompeo and Hook. But later determinations did not give a dollar amount.

In those notifications, the State Department told lawmakers that threats against Pompeo and Hook remain “serious and credible” and continue to warrant government-provided security details.

Biden administration officials briefed Trump officials earlier this month about the ongoing threat posed by Iran to Pompeo, Hook, Bolton and others and why the administration had extended the security details for them, according to a former senior Biden administration official familiar with the matter.

The official, who requested anonymity to discuss the private briefing, said Trump administration officials are “well aware” of the “active threats” against the former government officials and called the move “highly irresponsible.”

Posted

Anchor- " We cut away from our detailed coverage of Taylor Swift for breaking news from the Pentagon."

"Good evening Joanne, this is Chad Shitzenheifen live from the Pentagon. We are awaiting news from Sec Def Hegsmegma about his role in the negotiations with Iran. Here comes the Secretary."

Hegsegma, "American people, negotiations in good faith were ongoing, but the Iranians have walked away from the table. We tried. We really did. We thought we had a deal in place. Their failure to allow for full import of US bacon into Iran was balked at and broke the negotiations.

In other news, B2's from Barksdale, on a routine training flight in the Indian Ocean and fully loaded have commenced military operations against Iran."

 


 

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

"The Riviera of the Middle East."

Remember that $600M the Saudis just said they would "invest" in the US? Yeah, I think I know where that is going.

It will be another colonial tourism spot. Those are built all over the place, just not in war zones.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

"The Riviera of the Middle East."

Remember that $600M the Saudis just said they would "invest" in the US? Yeah, I think I know where that is going.

It will be another colonial tourism spot. Those are built all over the place, just not in war zones.

 

It'll be the Macao of the eastern Med!

Posted
37 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It'll be the Macao of the eastern Med!

Nah, Dubai is that. This will be more european I am sure.

25 minutes ago, elfenix said:

dude hears 'gaza strip' and thinks 'vegas strip'

With Trump? nah, atlantic city.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Tonesky said:

Which, conveniently no longer includes any Palestinians - the current people of the area....

Yep. That's how ethnic cleansing works.

  1. Conquer a territory
  2. Deport most or all of the undesirables--usually along racial/ethnic, linguistic, and/or religious lines
  3. Profit 

It appears that current US foreign policy is now in favor of ethnic cleansing. Yes, modern America is a nation that, as a matter of policy, promotes, aids, and abets in ethnic cleansing. That's our official stance now.

Who's next?

  • Like 2
Posted

https://x.com/DanBurmawy/status/1888678228463878565

 

Quote

Listen up. I am Jordanian, and I tell you that the two-state solution is dead, stone cold. And I’ll tell you why. 

Back in 1994, when Yitzhak Rabin was ready to hand the Palestinians a state on a silver platter, who was the loudest voice against it? Benjamin Netanyahu. And what did the world call him? A radical, an enemy of peace, a warmonger. Even inside Israel, many thought he was being extreme. But was he? 

Bibi’s argument was simple: You don’t hand a state to people who openly declare that your country has no right to exist and that their ultimate goal is to wipe you off the map. That’s not a “peace process”, that’s national suicide. 

He understood the security risks. A Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) would leave Israel a mere 9 miles wide at its narrowest point. That’s nothing. That’s an easy invasion route. That’s a security nightmare. It would take minutes to cut Israel in half and massacre its people. 

But did Israel listen? Of course not. In 2000, Ehud Barak came back and sweetened the deal. He offered Arafat a state again. Thank God Arafat said no. And why did he say no? Because he never wanted a state, he wanted Israel gone. 

Fast forward to 2005. Ariel Sharon tried another approach. He said, “Fine, let’s give them a test run.” So he pulled every single Jew out of Gaza, 70,000 settlers, forcibly removed. He even went so far as to dig up Jewish graves to ensure Gaza was 100% Judenrein. No excuses left. The Palestinians had a chance to prove they could run a state. 

So what did they do? Did they build hospitals, schools, and infrastructure? Did they work on nation-building? Did they take this golden opportunity and create a thriving mini-state to prove to the world that they were ready for independence? 

Nope. Instead, they turned Gaza into a terrorist launchpad. Since 2005, Gaza has been a rocket factory, a jihadist training camp, and a tunnel network straight out of a horror movie. Billions in aid poured in, and instead of building a future, Hamas built weapons to destroy Israel. 

So let’s go back to the original question: Who was right, the dreamers who kept offering the Palestinians a state or Bibi Netanyahu, who warned them this would be a disaster? 

The answer is clear. Bibi was right. The Palestinians never cared about statehood. They only cared about destroying the Jewish state. 

And this is the part most people don’t want to say out loud: This conflict was never about “occupation.” That was always a lie. The West Bank and Gaza are just convenient excuses. The real issue is Islamic jihad. 

Bibi understands this better than anyone. The people Israel has been negotiating with for decades don’t want borders. They want annihilation. It’s not about compromise. It’s about erasing Israel from the map. 

So, no, the two-state solution isn’t “dying.” It’s already dead. And it’s been dead since the first time Israel tried to make peace with people who don’t believe in peace. 

Danny Burmawi

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I agree with this guy. I don’t think you make it until Tuesday before this guy’s character is assasinated here. 

He may be. But there are a shit ton of Arabs who feel the same way. Palestine is a romantic cause for them. They don't want them in their countries, and in part due to what happened in Jordan already. Egypt's ongoing problems with the Muslim Brotherhood exasperates this.

Emiratis? they don't want them. They will invest just enough to say they did. More? Nope. Saudi? Nope. They keep the prayers going about it, and their people tend to not focus on the shit sandwich they have at home (if middle class) or will soon (demographics and reliance on external labor and resources.)

So what do you do? As long as their is just 5% of either group who wants the ultimate destruction of the other, or as they prefer to preach it, their own ultimate salvation, shit continues.

Posted

It's long been true that all the other Arab countries "support" the Palestinian "cause" but sure as shit won't give them a place to live. 

Palestinians aren't exactly subtle with their long term goals regarding Isreal. 

Being against certain actions by the Israeli Government doesn't mean one is pro-Palestine/Hamas. Just as supporting Isreal against Hamas does not mean one is pro-ethnic cleansing. However to categorically seperate Palestine from Hamas is just denial of fact. To consistently side with one faction over and over again regardless of circumstances and not see the sliding scale of issues on both sides is a tell.

Lots of shades of gray some here seem to want to overlook.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

It's long been true that all the other Arab countries "support" the Palestinian "cause" but sure as shit won't give them a place to live. 

Palestinians aren't exactly subtle with their long term goals regarding Isreal. 

Being against certain actions by the Israeli Government doesn't mean one is pro-Palestine/Hamas. Just as supporting Isreal against Hamas does not mean one is pro-ethnic cleansing. However to categorically seperate Palestine from Hamas is just denial of fact. To consistently side with one faction over and over again regardless of circumstances and not see the sliding scale of issues on both sides is a tell.

Lots of shades of gray some here seem to want to overlook.

I mean, categorically separating Israel from the settlers is also just a denial of fact, but yeah, there are tons of nuanced positions one can hold.

For example, one could believe that both groups need/deserve their own homelands: the Two-State Solution. Or, one could also believe that both groups should share the land as a single republic: the One-State Solution. Others could come down on a side that says neither fucking deserves it; it's a holy land for the world's three Abrahamic religions: the No-State Solution. Recently, some bloviating buffoon of a carnival barker actually proposed the US State Solution. But, mostly, I've heard others on this site say only one side should get it: the Final Solution.

Yes, some people/posters are very consistent in which of the above positions they advocate for, while others offer nothing but inconsistent positions and constant derision. Where do you stand? The Status Quo Solution? No, not the status quo, because you've already tipped your hand to your lean with this statement:
It's long been true that all the other Arab countries "support" the Palestinian "cause" but sure as shit won't give them a place to live.

Would you believe, though, that about 5 million Palestinians already live in nations immediately surrounding Israel? Are you expecting them to take another 5 million that currently live in the West Bank (3M) and Gaza (2M)? And, yes, the idea of evicting *only* 2 million Gazans is what's on the table *now*, but that's just temporarily the case.

But, sure, let's keep rationally discussing the cold logic of crimes against humanity and, ultimately, ethnic cleansing.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I mean, categorically separating Israel from the settlers is also just a denial of fact, but yeah, there are tons of nuanced positions one can hold.

For example, one could believe that both groups need/deserve their own homelands: the Two-State Solution. Or, one could also believe that both groups should share the land as a single republic: the One-State Solution. Others could come down on a side that says neither fucking deserves it; it's a holy land for the world's three Abrahamic religions: the No-State Solution. Recently, some bloviating buffoon of a carnival barker actually proposed the US State Solution. But, mostly, I've heard others on this site say only one side should get it: the Final Solution.

Yes, some people/posters are very consistent in which of the above positions they advocate for, while others offer nothing but inconsistent positions and constant derision. Where do you stand? The Status Quo Solution? No, not the status quo, because you've already tipped your hand to your lean with this statement:
It's long been true that all the other Arab countries "support" the Palestinian "cause" but sure as shit won't give them a place to live.

Would you believe, though, that about 5 million Palestinians already live in nations immediately surrounding Israel? Are you expecting them to take another 5 million that currently live in the West Bank (3M) and Gaza (2M)? And, yes, the idea of evicting *only* 2 million Gazans is what's on the table *now*, but that's just temporarily the case.

But, sure, let's keep rationally discussing the cold logic of crimes against humanity and, ultimately, ethnic cleansing.

I also challenge someone to show where they should/could go. You hear "the Sinai." Um, no water, its a big fucking desert. "Build desal." Sure, ya know that does not happen overnight. "truck it in." From where? Lake Victoria?

There is not good answer. Humans have lived among devastation while it was being rebuilt. Berlin says Hola.

So you employ them. You train them. You build up the economy there.

I love how we overlook Israel had dropped its guard on and leading up to Oct. 7th.

Yo, but we might be getting CR if I talk Hamas, since that is political right?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

I also challenge someone to show where they should/could go. You hear "the Sinai." Um, no water, its a big fucking desert. "Build desal." Sure, ya know that does not happen overnight. "truck it in." From where? Lake Victoria?

There is not good answer. Humans have lived among devastation while it was being rebuilt. Berlin says Hola.

So you employ them. You train them. You build up the economy there.

I love how we overlook Israel had dropped its guard on and leading up to Oct. 7th.

Yo, but we might be getting CR if I talk Hamas, since that is political right?

I won't get into your 4th and 5th lines, but the previous three hit the nail on the head.

One final point on the neighbors taking in Palestinian refugees: they rightly point out that Israel will refuse Palestinians re-entry into their own land once the dust all settles, making them complicit in Israeli war crimes as part of some "deal."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I won't get into your 4th and 5th lines, but the previous three hit the nail on the head.

One final point on the neighbors taking in Palestinian refugees: they rightly point out that Israel will refuse Palestinians re-entry into their own land once the dust all settles, making them complicit in Israeli war crimes as part of some "deal."

yes, there is that, but no one really cares about the IC.

 

 

Edited by InkaUtexas
Posted
50 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I mean, categorically separating Israel from the settlers is also just a denial of fact, but yeah, there are tons of nuanced positions one can hold.

For example, one could believe that both groups need/deserve their own homelands: the Two-State Solution. Or, one could also believe that both groups should share the land as a single republic: the One-State Solution. Others could come down on a side that says neither fucking deserves it; it's a holy land for the world's three Abrahamic religions: the No-State Solution. Recently, some bloviating buffoon of a carnival barker actually proposed the US State Solution. But, mostly, I've heard others on this site say only one side should get it: the Final Solution.

Yes, some people/posters are very consistent in which of the above positions they advocate for, while others offer nothing but inconsistent positions and constant derision. Where do you stand? The Status Quo Solution? No, not the status quo, because you've already tipped your hand to your lean with this statement:
It's long been true that all the other Arab countries "support" the Palestinian "cause" but sure as shit won't give them a place to live.

Would you believe, though, that about 5 million Palestinians already live in nations immediately surrounding Israel? Are you expecting them to take another 5 million that currently live in the West Bank (3M) and Gaza (2M)? And, yes, the idea of evicting *only* 2 million Gazans is what's on the table *now*, but that's just temporarily the case.

But, sure, let's keep rationally discussing the cold logic of crimes against humanity and, ultimately, ethnic cleansing.

So there is no desire for ethnic cleansing on the other side? Really?

I you assume my position to be "A" based on one specific sentence.

Got it. 

Fuck you, Hamas and this conversation.

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

You committed a cardinal Surly sin by demonstrating too much common sense. Specifically, you were critical of Palestine, yet did not caveat your statements with sufficient criticism of Israel. 

Well, actually, I wasn't even critical of Palestinian nor Palestinians rather, I pointed out that the aren't a lot of options for them elsewhere. Which, I now know is being critical of Palestinian and clearly categorically wrong, apparently.

Edited by BurntEyes

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...