Jump to content

Israel


SmokeyBear1861

Recommended Posts

I see the logic here. I don't agree with it, because I'm a firm believer that people can be reformed and even the worst criminals are entitled to an opportunity to pursue the path of reformation. Contrary to what assclowns like Elon Musk believe, demographics are not destiny. A boy who was radicalized in his teens can be deradicalized in his 20s and 30s. If I believe the people of Palestine can learn to tolerate Jews then I must also believe that an Israeli child who today would be raised to believe Arabs are subhuman can also grow up to be tolerant and even loving towards Arabs. Those who would bomb a Palestinian apartment complex full of children or who would murder an Israeli child are robbing those children of their opportunities to make their own choices, including choices that set them down the path of peace and love.

You believe that evil can be redeemed.
I do not.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong.
I’ve seen enough history to believe that evil doesn’t go away. Shit, in our own country, we’ve never even genuinely sought contrition or peace after the sin of slavery. We won’t, we can’t, because humans are shit.
Propping up Hamas bc the tension is good for business and political power for Likud is pretty bad. 
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/

Likud is shit. To continue with the theme and observation above. Likud and Bibi are flat-out evil; they would sacrifice generations for political power. And it worked. A new generation of leadership will end up doing the same. Because humans are shit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Perhaps you'll be surprised by my response: every bit of what you shared is horrific, and I have long thought that the Israeli state has been and continues to commit crimes against humanity.  Israel has the uncleanest of hands.

But in the end, we get to this end-game.....how do you negotiate?  Here are the parties positions:

Party A: "my position is that you should be wiped off the face of the earth.  Every man, woman, and child of your people should be slaughtered, wherever they may be found, behind every rock, every tree, until none of you are left on this earth."

Party B: "Hmmmm....I don't think I can give on that.  And to be honest, it's a bit of a touchy subject, being that assholes have been trying to exterminate my people for 2,000+ years, and made a pretty good run at it last century.  How about I give you more freedom and autonomy, but you pinkie swear NOT to work to exterminate all my people?"

Party A:  "Did I fucking stutter?  Die.  All of you."

As I said, I don't absolve Israel of its many crimes.  But there is an element of degree, and a dividing line - those things are undeniable. 

One party will take action that will result in harm and death to civilians (including children) if it is necessary to attack an enemy that has sworn to exterminate that party.  It may be more casual and careless about that than anyone can support, but its mission is NOT "exterminate civilians and children."  

The other party will kill civilians and children whenever and wherever it can, until the end of time.  It is the foundation of its very mission: "exterminate the jews wherever they may be found."

Neither path is anything I like.  But the second one is incompatible with two groups of humans living on earth.  The Hamas position is unambiguous, and these are the options: genocide of the jews, or death of the Palestinians as they try to kill all the jews.

If you are a jew, which of those options do you pick?  We are facing a situation where the outcome is going to be horrific, but unavoidable: one group will be eliminated from the earth, and the other will be committing genocide.  Pick which group you want to fill which role.  Both sides lose.  Humanity loses.

The ONLY thing that can change that calculus is for the side seeking genocide to.....stop seeking genocide.  Take genocide off the table, and a world of options opens up.  At this point, it doesn't matter who started what.  It doesn't matter who did the latest bad thing, or more of a bad thing.  In a two-side dynamic where one side's position is "genocide," there is no negotiation or compromise to be had.

The Palestinian people can make a plain statement that jews have a right to exist on this planet, and they reject any leadership that preaches otherwise, and at that point, they have my full support in whatever negotiation they choose to undertake.  Indeed, I would suggest that they have and have reclaimed the moral high ground, and should have great leverage - I would certainly be arguing in their favor at most every turn.  On the contrary, so long as extermination of all jewish life on earth is the cornerstone of the Palestinian negotiating position, nothing can be done, nothing can be improved, and Israel would be stupid to try.

 

There's only 4 possible outcomes to the entire issue:

  1. Two states
  2. Annexation
  3. Status quo, indefinitely
  4. Ethnic cleansing

Israel will never let #2 happen, for a bunch of obvious reasons that have already been discussed in this thread. Not worth talking about.

Only the most unhinged right-wing voices in Israel and the US even bring up #4. Also not a whole lot to say there.

Israel clearly prefers #3 to #1. I think that's for two main reasons: 1) in order for two states to happen, they'd have to either forcibly remove their own citizens from big chunks of the West Bank (politically disastrous), or they'd have to make painful land concessions to the Palestinians (...politically disastrous), and 2) they believe it enhances their security situation.

The first reason is a problem entirely of their own creation. I don't have a lot of sympathy. The international community, including their own closest allies, has warned them again and again and again that West Bank settlements are a horrible idea, and they just don't give a fuck. The fact that they would have to eat that shit sandwich should not be a valid excuse.

Their second reason for preferring the status quo (enhanced security) is a valid reason, but it's also a miscalculation. The status quo costs them their relationship with the Arab world, it harms their standing around the world to varying degrees, and it radicalizes the Palestinian population. It's also contrary to Israel's foundation as a democratic country, for good measure.

You say that the Palestinians want the extermination of Israel/the Jews. Hamas clearly wants that. I can buy that the average Palestinian man on the street might say that if a reporter sticks a microphone in his face. But IMO most people, if left alone, just want to kinda...live their lives. Still to this day, a disturbingly large percentage of Americans subscribe to the preposterous belief that the 2020 election was stolen. But how many actually attacked the capitol? A few hundred? The rest are just...at work. Living their lives, posting garbage on Facebook.

Hamas is a terrorist organization, full stop. It should absolutely be dealt with as such. But so was Al Qaeda, and we never intended to take control of Afghanistan forever. So was ISIS, and we never tried to take control of Syria. Israel has the ability (and the right) to secure its border with a hypothetical Palestinian state. We're not talking about the US-Canada border, here. If Hamas acts up, bitch slap them. Hell, invade and take them out, just like we did with Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. We'd cover for them at the Security Council, no sweat.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That has to the all time post on Surly

Yeah…the guy who looks at a region with a lengthy history of bloodshed, and says “I see continued bloodshed, and lots of it,” is the one….NOT being realistic?
Reality isn’t what we want it to be. It’s what is. And what “is” in the levant is a horror show that will not end.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


You believe that evil can be redeemed.
I do not.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong.
 

I thought from what you've posted in the past you believe in a story about an evil man named Saul who changed his name to Paul post-redemption.

Edited by BeardIP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought from what you've posted in the past you believe in a story about an evil man named Saul who changed his name to Paul post-redemption.

Anecdotes are not competent evidence. Any individual man can change. But the odds are - and history backs it up - that the vast majority will not.
That’s what I mean by being realistic. A plan that relies on “and the majority of the Palestinians will end up changing their minds and decide that maybe Jews don’t need to be exterminated” is not a good or realistic plan.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you dismiss #4 too easily. If we are going to assign broadly to the palestinians the words of their extremists, maybe we should do the same with the other side. Stick a mic in front of a WB settler and you will hear some outright calls for genocide.  Shit, put a mic in front of their PM or their defense minister and you will get essentially the same. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I think that you dismiss #4 too easily. If we are going to assign broadly to the palestinians the words of their extremists, maybe we should do the same with the other side. Stick a mic in front of a WB settler and you will hear some outright calls for genocide.  Shit, put a mic in front of their PM or their defense minister and you will get essentially the same. 

Stick a mic in multiple threads on this website and you’ll hear it. Don’t need to travel

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, LCHorn said:

IT ten years ago was full of olds who thought Red McCombs was wrong when he said Charlie Strong would make a good coordinator because you should get a white man for those positions, too.  
 

Now those have been joined by refugees from OB and 247 and who no longer have the crutch of age to help justify their ignorance.  
 

Nahlin himself is a worshipper at the altar of Reagan, which I have always considered odd given how the recruiting guys must have to prostrate themselves to a bunch of black teenagers in order to generate content.

The more surprising one, to me, was Scipio. I figured he was a more measured Texas libertarian type, but he's downright bloodthirsty in that thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this isn't a "let's gang up on Briskettexan because he's lashing out emotionally", but it's more of what Sydney said. Brisket is right in some aspects, as is hobbes and chainsaw and roma and everyone else. 

Personally, I'd like to see some semblance of mercy being given.

That to me looks like, taking the longer, harder, more costly and less satisfying road of retaliation rather than just dust the Gaza strip with everyone in it 30 mins on the dot after an amber alert is sent to whatever cell phones are working in the already war-torn area.

I'd like to see restraint even if the Hamas terrorists are using their own as shields, as cowardly and evil as they are.

I'd like to see a controlled, righteously angry response rather than reflexive and hasty overwrought violence, whether it be from a place of hurt and pain and defiance or, worse yet, political manipulation.

But I fully acknowledge I say this in a place of privilege of not being Israeli, Jewish, or Jewish-adjacent. It's easy for me to preach, so I don't begrudge those who are hurting and in pain their response, even if I ultimately disagree.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


You believe that evil can be redeemed.
I do not.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong.
I’ve seen enough history to believe that evil doesn’t go away. Shit, in our own country, we’ve never even genuinely sought contrition or peace after the sim of slavery. We won’t, we can’t, because humans are shit.

Germany? Japan? Italy? I agree humans are shit but there are levels of shittiness. Circumstances are very different and I don’t have the bandwidth to go through them all, but this post is solely in response to your very broad statement that evil societies can’t change. Seems like it was only a decade or two that German society went from eradicating Jews and trying to take over the world to having their culture celebrated worldwide during Oktoberfest. Like one of Norm McDonalds best bits, “you’d think they wouldn’t be allowed to be a country anymore,” but I guess they got their genocidal tendencies out and are now a world economic power.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Propping up Hamas bc the tension is good for business and political power for Likud is pretty bad. 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/

I've seen this posted a bunch.  Im not going to pretend to know the full context of it.   The only person I have ever seen providing some is from this guy.  

 

 

 

And a longer post he had on this topic.   Again, I'm not saying I know the answers but thought this potentially provides some context.

image.png.8e42a8c56036bb72d49dd1b5cdd50d12.png

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

And this isn't a "let's gang up on Briskettexan because he's lashing out emotionally", but it's more of what Sydney said. Brisket is right in some aspects, as is hobbes and chainsaw and roma and everyone else. 

Personally, I'd like to see some semblance of mercy being given.

That to me looks like, taking the longer, harder, more costly and less satisfying road of retaliation rather than just dust the Gaza strip with everyone in it 30 mins on the dot after an amber alert is sent to whatever cell phones are working in the already war-torn area.

I'd like to see restraint even if the Hamas terrorists are using their own as shields, as cowardly and evil as they are.

I'd like to see a controlled, righteously angry response rather than reflexive and hasty overwrought violence, whether it be from a place of hurt and pain and defiance or, worse yet, political manipulation.

But I fully acknowledge I say this in a place of privilege of not being Israeli, Jewish, or Jewish-adjacent. It's easy for me to preach, so I don't begrudge those who are hurting and in pain their response, even if I ultimately disagree.

Yeah, I have no idea how this particular thing could work but I think I prefer an option where IDF rolls into Gaza and "occupies" the territory while sending out Zero Dark Thirty/SEAL Team 6-like raids to eliminate Hamas teams. Hell, cut their heads off if it makes you feel better.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Anecdotes are not competent evidence. Any individual man can change. But the odds are - and history backs it up - that the vast majority will not.
That’s what I mean by being realistic. A plan that relies on “and the majority of the Palestinians will end up changing their minds and decide that maybe Jews don’t need to be exterminated” is not a good or realistic plan.

What about what happened in Germany and Japan? Two nations each heading a couple of the most bloodthirsty campaigns in history. You’d have no idea looking at their societies even 20 years later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The Palestinians will hate the jews until the heat death of the universe, and will seek their extinction. 

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


I’m aware that there are many different viewpoints within each society.
But the dominant viewpoint in Palestinian society (whether in raw numbers of adherents or in terms of the power wielded by those who hold that position) is, and has been, extermination of the Jews and elimination of Israel as a state.
We don’t want it to be that way. I don’t want it to be that way. I desperately want two peoples to find a way to coexist in peace. I’m just enough of a realist to have ditched all such hope.
These two peoples are going to kill each other until one of them is gone.

Calm down, Beavis Brisket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RollingPresidential said:

The more surprising one, to me, was Scipio. I figured he was a more measured Texas libertarian type, but he's downright bloodthirsty in that thread. 

Dammit, you made me look.  You’re right, he’s being an asshole.  That said, the “I’m a subscriber, you should be nicer to me”, I bet gets frustrating.  
 

Lots of violent fantasies getting written up over there, maybe they find it soothing.  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Anastasis said:

[wildcat]huh, look at who is cheering on genocide[/wildcat] 

And look who is cheering on disinformation operations. 

Oz is a Lebanese journalist whose feed is full of criticism of Israel and who manages to engage honestly.  Anyone who races to call things they don’t like “disinformation” or call into question the objectivity of Jews who report on Israel needs to take a deep breath and think about what they say.

 

 

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Oz is a Lebanese journalist whose feed is full of criticism of Israel and who manages to engage honestly.  Anyone who races to call things they don’t like “disinformation” or call into question the objectivity of Jews who report on Israel needs to take a deep breath and think about what they say.

 

 

 

Im sure there are some, but at least here (I could've missed it) I don't think people were denying it, but were simply asking for it to be fact-checked/vetted before they started taking it as gospel.  Any time there is a major event it is littered with reports that turn out to be complete BS, over and over and over.   

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extremists (and they usually seem to be religiously motivated - not just Muslim) don't care about how many lives they take in pursuit of their holy war. We've seen this time and time again. 

Imo Israel, being in the middle of a war/terrorist attack from Hamas, is under no obligation at this time (maybe later) to show "mercy". Israel is at war. They are fighting an enemy that calls for the destruction of Israel. They don't have the luxury of mercy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


You believe that evil can be redeemed.
I do not.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong.
I’ve seen enough history to believe that evil doesn’t go away. Shit, in our own country, we’ve never even genuinely sought contrition or peace after the sin of slavery. We won’t, we can’t, because humans are shit.
 

You believe the average Palestinian is evil? What is the basis for that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

 

Im sure there are some, but at least here (I could've missed it) I don't think people were denying it, but were simply asking for it to be fact-checked/vetted before they started taking it as gospel.  Any time there is a major event it is littered with reports that turn out to be complete BS, over and over and over.   

Especially with the degradation of Twitter, I think it's more important than ever to be very careful about not spreading unverified information. There's a whole lot of shitheads involved knowingly spreading disinformation to drum up anger and hatred, and now Elon fucking pays them to do so.  Then we've got many many more people who unwittingly spread that disinformation, earnestly believing it's real, but who are ultimately serving the aims of those who spread the disinformation in the first place. We've been talking about the beheaded babies story, but there's also plenty of similar clips and videos going around of dead Palestinian babies, plenty of which are real and plenty of which are not (or are from prior events).  

It's not helpful to any moral cause to spread disinformation. That only serves the ends of the worst people who want to stoke these fires as hot as they can. That doesn't mean there's not going to be tons of horrific stories that are true.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

I'm legitimately curious if you think Israel should bear any blame for this aspect of the conflict. You seem very much focused on "they want to eradicate the Jews." Even if that is true for many (which I think is way overbroad), don't you think there is some logic to that belief for people who have lived under the oppressive thumb of Israel for decades? It's like abusing a dog for years then letting it lose and when it bites someone you have no choice but to put it down. The decision to put it down was probably the right call, but why should we ignore the circumstances that led to that outcome?

 

 

This same analogy be applied to the jews, its never ending just as to which clan can lay claim to that spat of dirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Holy shit. It commemorates the conquest of Judea and features the depiction below as a detail from Titus' triumph.

spacer.png

I guess Italy using this monument is like the Germans lighting up a Nazi building with stars of David.

History has been so hard on those people.

 

name checks out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Anyone who races to call things they don’t like “disinformation” or call into question the objectivity of Jews who report on Israel needs to take a deep breath and think about what they say.

You go too far with this line of thinking. In wartime I question the objectivity of any media outlet reporting on their home nation. That's not bigoted, it's logical. It's not anti-Christian to question an American reporter reporting on America in war and it's not anti-Semitic to question an Israeli reporter reporting on Israel. 

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Dammit, you made me look.  You’re right, he’s being an asshole.  That said, the “I’m a subscriber, you should be nicer to me”, I bet gets frustrating.  
 

Lots of violent fantasies getting written up over there, maybe they find it soothing.  
 

 

I guess. Nahlin used to follow me on Twitter until the 2016 election or so, so I've been familiar with his feelings on things for awhile. I also know that Ian Boyd was a big Trump guy during the 2015/2016 primaries so I'm not unfamiliar with the cast of characters over there (once got into a twitter spat with him over whether the Crusades were a net good).

I don't begrudge people their political beliefs, as much as I might disagree with them. It's how you act them out that matters. Everyone frothing at the mouth for the blood of the Turk over there is just appalling, and Scipio plopping in with a "WATCH" and a quote of Ben Shapiro ("Arabs swim in sewage") was disappointing. Lot of Dad-history buffs there living out their civilizational conflicts in an age of comfort. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You go too far with this line of thinking. In wartime I question the objectivity of any media outlet reporting on their home nation. That's not bigoted, it's logical. It's not anti-Christian to question an American reporter reporting on America in war and it's not anti-semitic to question an Israeli reporter reporting on Israel. 

Here's an example that doesn't relate to Israel (at least not directly) of why skepticism of wartime and war-adjacent stories is important. Jump ahead to 3:30

"We couldn't sell the war without" the false narrative of babies being killed.

This journalist discovered some very key omissions and conflicts of interest regarding the testimony given to Congress. If false narratives would be (and historically have been) used to justify invasions, they would be and could be used to justify war crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Has surly come up with the bare minimum requirements for reclaiming a homeland? Just curious because I have been eyeing this nice little town in the foothills of the Pyrenees with my surname.

the requirements are the same as ever. you have to win a war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sidis said:

but they does pose a realpolitik inquiry that is just being conveniently ignored by those who have the luxury of projecting self-righteousness on this message board and saying "well i don't need to answer your question because i can't."  no rational person wants civilians to die, that's a given.  note: when i say rational person, that does not include the many pieces of shit we have on this board that get off to the idea of palestinian genocide.  

The issue is they don't pose a realpolitik inquiry, but absolute emotional impulse. Good and evil? Jesus.

 

Funny you bring it up though because I was considering trolling Brisket with an Bismark reference but thought better of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RollingPresidential said:

I don't begrudge people their political beliefs, as much as I might disagree with them. It's how you act them out that matters. Everyone frothing at the mouth for the blood of the Turk over there is just appalling, and Scipio plopping in with a "WATCH" and a quote of Ben Shapiro ("Arabs swim in sewage") was disappointing. Lot of Dad-history buffs there living out their civilizational conflicts in an age of comfort. 

Did Scipio not thoroughly pants himself enough for you over the past few years?  The guy rode an unjustified wave (save his ability to turn a phrase) for a long time.  He's a dick, and not very logical.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, G650 said:

The issue is they don't pose a realpolitik inquiry, but absolute emotional impulse. Good and evil? Jesus.

 

Funny you bring it up though because I was considering trolling Brisket with an Bismark reference but thought better of it.

of course it does.  maybe brisket's hyper-emotional and dramatic language characterizing a revelations like battle for the soul of humankind confuses it, sure...but there remains a legitimate inquiry.

you've been ruthlessly attacked by an aggressor.  that aggressor strategically retreats behind civilians.  you hold categorically that above all things, no civilians can be harmed.  

you're then faced with the inquiry...accept the violence perpetrated and say sorry as chainsaw has suggested or respond in-kind with violence knowing civilians will be inevitably harmed as brisket suggests?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, G650 said:

The issue is they don't pose a realpolitik inquiry, but absolute emotional impulse. Good and evil? Jesus.

 

Funny you bring it up though because I was considering trolling Brisket with an Bismark reference but thought better of it.

It is a realpokitik issue. And do you not believe using humans as shields to commit unthinkable crimes isnt evil? Is every Palestinian evil? No. Is there great evil taking place here? Fuck yes there is great evil taking place here. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sidis said:

of course it does.  maybe brisket's hyper-emotional and dramatic language characterizing a revelations like battle for the soul of humankind confuses it, sure...but there remains a legitimate inquiry.

you've been ruthlessly attacked by an aggressor.  that aggressor strategically retreats behind civilians.  you hold categorically that above all things, no civilians can be harmed.  

you're then faced with the inquiry...accept the violence perpetrated and say sorry as chainsaw has suggested or respond in-kind with violence knowing civilians will be inevitably harmed as brisket suggests?

You are just doing what Brisket is in this post. These aren't the only two options. To engage in Realpolitik will take a lot more than this into account and choose a complex nuanced path of many actions.

 

In my opinion there have not been any true examples of realpolitik since the 19th century anyway, Kissinger and a few Soviets are the only one's who have even played footsie with realpolitik since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

Not invading your neighbor and killing 1,000+ civilians and kidnapping their women and children would have been a good choice to avoid it.  Now it’s going to happen, though. 

Well, it happened.  I desperately hope Israel doesn't return that particular favor.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

I'll blow right through that stop sign. Just as the death of a civilian human shield is on the combatant who used them as a shield, the deaths of the enslavers' children are on the enslavers. I'd prefer if they didn't, but I don't find it morally wrong in any way that they did. Hell, an objective analysis would find that those children would have been almost certain to use the legal system at the time to subjugate the slaves' children so even with the benefit of a cool head it's hard to say it's wrong.

Putting aside the questionable premise that it's morally okay to kill the children of your enslavers, I would hope we all understand that the average Israeli civilian family is not the enslaver of Gaza anyway.

And, this sounds dangerously close to the argument that America deserved 9/11 because of American foreign policy.  And that is one bad fucking argument.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You believe the average Palestinian is evil? What is the basis for that

Inherently evil? Of course not. Steeped in it, indoctrinated in it, and taught that Jews are vermin to be exterminated from damn near infancy, with no real counter-programming? Yes. That’s a problem. How do you de-program millions and millions who have been taught unambiguously and relentlessly that Jews must die?
You don’t. It’s not feasible.
The issue is they don't pose a realpolitik inquiry, but absolute emotional impulse. Good and evil? Jesus.
 
Funny you bring it up though because I was considering trolling Brisket with an Bismark reference but thought better of it.

See the responses below. You again waltz past the absolute practical challenge here. Because it’s inconvenient for the fantasy world you want to construct.
of course it does.  maybe brisket's hyper-emotional and dramatic language characterizing a revelations like battle for the soul of humankind confuses it, sure...but there remains a legitimate inquiry.
you've been ruthlessly attacked by an aggressor.  that aggressor strategically retreats behind civilians.  you hold categorically that above all things, no civilians can be harmed.  
you're then faced with the inquiry...accept the violence perpetrated and say sorry as chainsaw has suggested or respond in-kind with violence knowing civilians will be inevitably harmed as brisket suggests?

It is a realpokitik issue. And do you not believe using humans as shields to commit unthinkable crimes isnt evil? Is every Palestinian evil? No. Is there great evil taking place here? Fuck yes there is great evil taking place here. 

Hamas has committed an act of genocide. It was acting consistent with its stated goals. Hamas is supported by the majority of the people in Gaza. And now, to avoid paying the price for its crime of genocide, it is committing another clearly defined war crime and using civilians as shields.
What is happening on the Gaza side is fucking evil. Why is it so hard to say that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, G650 said:

You are just doing what Brisket is in this post. These aren't the only two options. To engage in Realpolitik will take a lot more than this into account and choose a complex nuanced path of many actions.

 

In my opinion there have not been any true examples of realpolitik since the 19th century anyway, Kissinger and a few Soviets are the only one's who have even played footsie with realpolitik since.

you do make a fair point that there are an infinite number of alternative realpolitik paths that...frankly, would end much better than the current path.  the u.s., the e.u., and the gulf states could impose some good alternatives.  but it would be necessary to engage at a rational and practical level for those and that's simply not realistic in the short-term unfortunately given the impassioned moral and ideological states of the belligerents.

unfortunately, those are the choices once a direct response is executed.  in any alternative you propose that isn't simply idealistic, there is certainly suffering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Hamas has committed an act of genocide. It was acting consistent with its stated goals. Hamas is supported by the majority of the people in Gaza.

Really?  You know this to be true?

You come across as someone who doesn't know dozens if not hundreds of Palestinians and other Arabs, and I know that's not true.  

Edited by jimmyjazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know Hamas uses people as human shields, but some of y'all have what I think is an incorrect assumption that Israel's strikes are all targeted at Hamas targets. Their intelligence wasn't good enough to stop the initial attacks and things have been pure chaos ever since. I don't see any reason to think they have a good idea where Hamas militants currently are. They're reducing whole neighborhoods to rubble and they've bombed the crossing into Egypt, where tons of Palestinian civilians had fled to hoping to get out. 

There's no way to completely avoid civilian casualties in war and I wouldn't expect Israel to do so, but I think it's reasonable to expect them to not commit war crimes. All that's asking them to do is adhere to their own training. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...