Jump to content

Israel


SmokeyBear1861

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Welshy said:

You say "...solution most Palestinians would have supported (before the attacks and retaliation) was 1967 borders" and follow with "I think Israel could support that as well, if Palestine were to put measures in place that forbid terror...holding office."

So Palestine can no longer support that, but Israel could? This twisting of tenses is probably disingenuous as it implies Israel should pursue your proposal while acknowledging Palestine no longer would. Even if it isn't, it's actually correct: Gaza would not accept a peace fire, because Hamas is in charge of Gaza. Terror organizations don't voluntarily go away. They grow (hezbollah) or are exterminated. They killed and raped and tortured human beings as a recruiting event and pledge drive. That's it. 

 

There is no solution possible with Hamas. If you don't know that, you should.

I'm only acknowledging the limits of the poll data I was citing. I hope they still support it but I don't know.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, chainsaw said:

Not sure what you mean by this

Not what I'm saying. Jews have always lived in the area, but not in the occupied territories.

The occupied territories have always been Palestine, so in a sense yes.

To provide some context, this is what @Brisketexan had said:

The point being made, along the lines of a classic "both sides" false equivalence, is that the status quo ante would be as bad as caging Palestinians.

It's not hard to make the case that caging Palestinians just because they are Palestinians is unacceptable.

But I don't see why pre-1948 borders can be seriously considered the moral equivalent of placing an entire people in cages. Maybe if you think it means the expulsion of all Jews, but I don't see why it would mean that. I just mean that the apartheid should end and Arabs should have equal rights.

Israel has always had a problem- Jews are a liberal people, and the idea of a Jewish state is illiberal. 
 
Everywhere else in the ME, you have Muslim states. A Muslim state is also an illiberal idea, but the other people are illiberal, so you don’t have that tension. 
 
If Palestinians were allowed full access into Israel, and allowed to claim residency, in short order it would become a Muslim state. The Jews would have to flee, submit or die. 
 
I’m sorry you need this explained to you. 

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

Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

First, that’s a non sequitur. Second, I have no idea how to even respond because the way it’s framed it impossible to know what you’re referring to. 

If you'd been paying attention you'd know it's not a non-sequitur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Brisket, you know as well as anyone that there are plenty of ways to protect Jewish Israelis and their political power even in a unified state with Palestinians. This "they'll outfuck and outreproduce the Jews and then kill them all" is just replacement theory shit and is as likely to happen there as it is to happen here.

With all due respect....get real.

Every rational adult knows that the only way that there is an actual safe and secure jewish homeland is for Israel to be a jewish state.  Don't give me any bullshit of "you're just attributing badness to the Palestinians, maybe they WOULDN'T do what they've been clamoring to do since 1948 when they have political control of the entire levant."  Come.  The fuck.  ON.  Turn the levant into a majority Palestinian state, and there will be no Israel, not even a conceptual one.  It will just be one more country in the world where a) jews are in the minority b) among a population that may turn on them at any moment (and in this case, a population that actually has deep resentment of them right here, right now).  

We also know that apartheid states are no bueno.

If we accept that both of things are true, THEN we have to come up with a solution.  There is no IDEAL solution to be found.  Just a realistic solution.

I think it should be a two-state solution.  If you opt for chainsaw's approach, then you oppose a two-state solution.  Maybe that's the foundational question that should be asked of you, chainsaw, and the other posters in that corner:  as an ultimate outcome, do you support:

1) a two-state solution, with both an Israeli and Palestinian state,

2) a levant that is only a Palestinian state, and the jews there can remain for as long as they feel comfortable, or

3) a levant that is only an Israeli state, with the Palestinians either entirely pushed out or kept in walled-off enclaves?

While there's plenty of permutations of each, those are the three core options.  Pick one.  Me?  I'm a two-state guy.  Because I'm a goddamned grownup and I know that option 2 or 3 ends up as a holocaust of one group of humans or another.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, statsman said:

Israel has always had a problem- Jews are a liberal people, and the idea of a Jewish state is illiberal. 
 
Everywhere else in the ME, you have Muslim states. A Muslim state is also an illiberal idea, but the other people are illiberal, so you don’t have that tension. 
 
If Palestinians were allowed full access into Israel, and allowed to claim residency, in short order it would become a Muslim state. The Jews would have to flee, submit or die. 
 
I’m sorry you need this explained to you. 

And this.  The idea of a Palestinian state that is also a safe haven for jews and judaism in the long run is an absurdist fantasy.  

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

6 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

You call it absurd, and the basis inevitably comes down to stereotyping.

Stereotyping?  How about just reading the fucking room?  And also, why in the dark blue FUCK would you EVER expect any people to willingly put their long-term fate in the hands of a people who at the very LEAST, has had a sizable plurality of that people wanting to wipe you off the earth for the past 3/4 of a century?  

You ask Israeli jews to do what no state has ever done or ever would do.  And you ask them to do that on a wing and a prayer, and a hope that maybe, all of that hatred and violence (with which the jews have 2,000+ years of DEEP experience with, everywhere they've been) will just.....go away.

Goddamn.  You're the one selling unicorn farts here, not me.  I'm not stereotyping shit to say that "making a minority - that is one of the most hated and persecuted minorities in the history of a the world - subject to the control of a majority that has a plurality of its members presently wanting to destroy that minority is quite likely to turn out very badly for the minority."  It's fucking common sense.

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

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Stereotyping?  How about just reading the fucking room?  And also, why in the dark blue FUCK would you EVER expect any people to willingly put their long-term fate in the hands of a people who at the very LEAST, has had a sizable plurality of that people wanting to wipe you off the earth for the past 3/4 of a century?  

You ask Israeli jews to do what no state has ever done or ever would do.  And you ask them to do that on a wing and a prayer, and a hope that maybe, all of that hatred and violence (with which the jews have 2,000+ years of DEEP experience with, everywhere they've been) will just.....go away.

Goddamn.  You're the one selling unicorn farts here, not me.  I'm not stereotyping shit to say that "making a minority - that is one of the most hated and persecuted minorities in the history of a the world - subject to the control of a majority that has a plurality of its members presently wanting to destroy that minority is quite likely to turn out very badly for the minority."  It's fucking common sense.

If I'm not mistaken, you likened the situation the region, before 1948, to the caging of Palestinians. That was you, right?

I don't think it was quite that bad. Given how bad things are now, I might even say things are worse now than they were before 1948.

If you're unwilling to consider the possibility that Arabs are just like us and want the same things you and I want, and they aren't some bloodthirsty horde of religious zealots, then I could perhaps understand why you feel the way you do. You asked for my proposed solution, and I provided it (1967 borders with conditions for both sides). The discussion about pre-1948 was based on me asking someone to make the case for why pre-1948 is on par with the caging of Palestinians. I don't believe those two things are on par with one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

LMAO dude Ukraine has never displaced Russians from ancestral lands. For what it's worth, I have some sympathy for the clueless conscripts, who are overwhelmingly drawn for non-ethnically Russian areas, that have been sent to the front lines but my sympathy ends when they participate in war crimes against Ukrainian civilians.

I don't know what kind of popular support the war in Russia has among Russian citizens, but I don't think anyone would be justified in committing crimes against humanity in Moscow as a form of collective punishment for the decisions of Russia's government.

That's not my position. I was only questioning why you believe it's on par with caging Palestinians. Is that really a fair comparison to make?

Forgive my ignorance but you and others keep talking about “caging Palestinians” (presumably en masse). Where are these cages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

If you're unwilling to consider the possibility that Arabs are just like us and want the same things you and I want, and they aren't some bloodthirsty horde of religious zealots, then I could perhaps understand why you feel the way you do.

I don't have to believe that Arabs as a whole are a "bloodthirsty horde of religious zealots" to think that a single Palestinian state would be hideous disaster for jews.  Again, I just have to read the room.

Today, right now, a material plurality of Palestinians wants to exterminate Israel and jews.  That's a real thing, that exists right now, in the very place we're talking about.  Turning your fate over to a group of which even 10% wants to exterminate you is the dumbest idea I've ever heard (and I've watched Greg Davis call plays).

Second, arab states do NOT want the same things you and I want.  We want some semblance of a liberal democracy, with robust protection for all citizens including minority groups (and the irony of the fact that Israel isn't pulling that off is not lost on me.  I'll suggest that in a region of illiberal, ethnically/religiously homogenous states, that's the only model that can work as a practical matter).  Look around you.  That is not the thing in the Arab world.  That is not the thing in middle eastern islamic states.  It just isn't.  And maybe that's okay for the residents if they are all members of that majority (although plenty of Syrians and Iranians, as just a couple of recent examples, would disagree with that).  But seriously.  No fucking way is any rational person buying that a Palestinian state would be anything other than another regional islamist state, operating under a similar ethos and track record as others....but actually even worse, because nobody hates the Israelis more than the Palestinians.

Jesus.  Your disconnect from reality makes this conversation pointless.  You want a solution for a world that doesn't exist.  Have fun in your room dreaming about that hypothetical world.  The rest of us will be out here living in the actual real, messy world that exists.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Legit do not understand how you can say “let’s return to the pre-1948 borders” and it mean anything else. That’s when the Jewish state in the Levant was founded. 

 

40 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

and that's as bad or worse than caging people on the basis of their race?

Just admit it, one state solution, in which Jews get to live there in peace (or at all) only if the Palestinians allow them to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I'm only acknowledging the limits of the poll data I was citing. I hope they still support it but I don't know.

I would caution against using that poll as a data point to support either side.  That poll is likely very inaccurate.  I highly doubt the Palestinians polled were willing to openly support the killing of Israelis in a poll for a foreign entity.  I also highly doubt that many were willing to openly oppose Hamas knowing that it could have repercussions to them and their families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You want a solution for a world that doesn't exist.  Have fun in your room dreaming about that hypothetical world.  The rest of us will be out here living in the actual real, messy world that exists.

It's ironic, in a sense, that you pass off your speculative vision of a Palestinian state as "the actual real" world, as if you would know better than the large number of vocal anti-war, anti-occupation Jews, or as if your speculative vision is more competent evidence than the track record of Palestinian refugees who have fled to other countries and have led exemplary, law-abiding, peaceful lives, or as if your speculative vision is more authoritative than the best available polling data from Palestine which said that a majority of Palestinians would accept the 1967 borders and an even larger majority wanted Hamas to stop using anti-Jew rhetoric, and an even larger majority opposed an end to the ceasefire.

Who made you the arbiter of what is "the actual real" world, anyway?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, txhorns said:

I would caution against using that poll as a data point to support either side.  That poll is likely very inaccurate.  I highly doubt the Palestinians polled were willing to openly support the killing of Israelis in a poll for a foreign entity.  I also highly doubt that many were willing to openly oppose Hamas knowing that it could have repercussions to them and their families.

That's a fair point, although if there is apprehension it would be one-sided and probably not in a way that downplays the support Hamas has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

The biggest let down gotcha since Geraldo and Capones vaults 

 

Seriously.....it's a gotcha for me to take into account my observation that.....arab states and particularly arab islamist states are.....not liberal democracies that are interested in protecting the rights of the minority, particularly jews?

I'm not saying that arabs are inherently bloodthirsty subhumans, or anything remotely like that.  I am observing a very real cultural difference and political difference tied to that cultural difference that has manifested itself repeatedly in the middle east.  I mean....a primarily jewish state is likely to have very flew places where one can find tasty bacon.  Businesses there are more likely to be closed on Saturday (as opposed to a primarily christian state having more businesses closed on Sunday, in some cases, by law).  Culture is politics.  Politics is culture.

It's not a controversial observation to note that it's presently not a good thing to be a jew in a predominantly arab islamist state.  This is....a hot take, that makes me anti-arab?  Really?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, chainsaw said:

Why are you so convinced that they would try to kill Jews? If that were true wouldn't you see more violence against Jews committed by Palestinian refugees in other countries? Wouldn't the poll numbers of Palestinians also be higher, in response to questions about violence, and lower, in response to disapproval of Hamas?

Why do you dismiss peace as a fantasy?

Well, let's see, the Serbs and Croats have been at it for quite awhile, but only on the dirt that both claim as theirs.  There are no Serbian and Croat gangs warring in Chicago.  Same for Indian and Pakistani immigrants in Jersey.  How about Hutu and Tutsi refugees in the diaspora?  The argument that, because Palestinians are not attacking Jews in Dallas, or Paris (oops, bad example), or wherever the fuck they are making a life instead of pining for 1948, is evidence that they want to kumbaya with the Jews in Jerusalem, is fucking absurd.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An idyllic, single state solution where everyone gets along is a great idea to kick around in theory and hope for, but I think @Brisketexan and I both agree that a two-state solution is the only realistic option for peace, at least in the short term. Even that would likely require significant changes in the power balance to work properly for everyone. I only need to look to the West Bank to see how a two-state solution with the current power imbalance would work out for Palestinians, in my opinion. On the flip side, Israelis would need assurances for their own safety, of course. And a government actually interested in what's best for Israelis.

Hamas, of course, needs to be destroyed. I have posited before in the thread that the most effective (read: least human casualties, probably) way to do this is to erode their support with diplomacy and empathy toward Palestinians as a whole. Terrorist organizations are notoriously difficult or impossible to defeat militarily, as even destroying their leadership or killing off a significant number of them usually only results in something as bad or worse replacing them. The best way to get rid of them is to change the variables that cause them to emerge in the first place/continue to gain support from X% of the population. I think the IRA is a good example of this point. I realize I am greatly simplifying in the interest of brevity, but the lion's share of the violence of the Troubles was ended through diplomatic means. (Note, this is not a comparison between the IRA and Hamas, please don't waste everyone's time by trying to throw that in my face).

Like I said, that's not an easy or quick solution and would likely require significant outside pressure (from the US, specifically) in order for the ball to even begin rolling on that one. We don't have the political will in America to even consider such a route.

I really don't know of a way to avoid catastrophe, and it sucks. I hate all of this, and I hate how angry makes me and how stupid it makes all of us.

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

12 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm sorry, bitch, are you trying to call me out when you conveniently failed to respond to this post?

With that weak of a straw man? Pathetic. Coward.

I didn't respond because there was nothing to respond to.  I've already agreed multiple times that Israel isn't should stop being dicks.  

But how is Israel's policy of settlements in the West Bank relevant to Hamas slaughtering Israelis near Gaza?  You know those are 2 different areas, right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

An idyllic, single state solution where everyone gets along is a great idea to kick around in theory and hope for, but I think @Brisketexan and I both agree that a two-state solution is the only realistic option for peace, at least in the short term. Even that would likely require significant changes in the power balance to work properly for everyone. I only need to look to the West Bank to see how a two-state solution with the current power imbalance would work out for Palestinians, in my opinion. On the flip side, Israelis would need assurances for their own safety, of course. And a government actually interested in what's best for Israelis.

Hamas, of course, needs to be destroyed. I have posited before in the thread that the most effective (read: least human casualties, probably) way to do this is to erode their support with diplomacy and empathy toward Palestinians as a whole. Terrorist organizations are notoriously difficult or impossible to defeat militarily, as even destroying their leadership or killing off a significant number of them usually only results in something as bad or worse replacing them. The best way to get rid of them is to change the variables that cause them to emerge in the first place/continue to gain support from X% of the population. I think the IRA is a good example of this point. I realize I am greatly simplifying in the interest of brevity, but the lion's share of the violence of the Troubles was ended through diplomatic means. (Note, this is not a comparison between the IRA and Hamas, please don't waste everyone's time by trying to throw that in my face).

Like I said, that's not an easy or quick solution and would likely require significant outside pressure (from the US, specifically) in order for the ball to even begin rolling on that one. We don't have the political will in America to even consider such a route.

I really don't know of a way to avoid catastrophe, and it sucks. I hate all of this, and I hate how angry makes me and how stupid it makes all of us.

Thanks for this.  You and I are much closer to being on the same page than you might think.

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

7 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

An idyllic, single state solution where everyone gets along is a great idea to kick around in theory and hope for, but I think @Brisketexan and I both agree that a two-state solution is the only realistic option for peace, at least in the short term. Even that would likely require significant changes in the power balance to work properly for everyone. I only need to look to the West Bank to see how a two-state solution with the current power imbalance would work out for Palestinians, in my opinion. On the flip side, Israelis would need assurances for their own safety, of course. And a government actually interested in what's best for Israelis.

Hamas, of course, needs to be destroyed. I have posited before in the thread that the most effective (read: least human casualties, probably) way to do this is to erode their support with diplomacy and empathy toward Palestinians as a whole. Terrorist organizations are notoriously difficult or impossible to defeat militarily, as even destroying their leadership or killing off a significant number of them usually only results in something as bad or worse replacing them. The best way to get rid of them is to change the variables that cause them to emerge in the first place/continue to gain support from X% of the population. I think the IRA is a good example of this point. I realize I am greatly simplifying in the interest of brevity, but the lion's share of the violence of the Troubles was ended through diplomatic means. (Note, this is not a comparison between the IRA and Hamas, please don't waste everyone's time by trying to throw that in my face).

Like I said, that's not an easy or quick solution and would likely require significant outside pressure (from the US, specifically) in order for the ball to even begin rolling on that one. We don't have the political will in America to even consider such a route.

I really don't know of a way to avoid catastrophe, and it sucks. I hate all of this, and I hate how angry makes me and how stupid it makes all of us.

Great post. Like I've been saying, most Palestinians were already on board with a 1967 borders-based two state solution, and I don't think it's out of reach. Is it ideal? Not in my opinion, but it would beat the status quo by a lot. The playbook for neutering insurgent groups is exactly what you said. That requires Israel to make the first move, and to quit being the villains Hamas wants them to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Palestinian Red Crescent says Israel orders hospital evacuation
The Palestinian Red Crescent says that Israeli forces have issued an evacuation order to Al-Quds hospital in Gaza.

The hospital is currently home to over 400 patients and 12,000 displaced civilians, according to the Red Crescent.

In a post on X, the humanitarian organisation called on the "international community to act urgently, averting another catastrophe like Al-Ahli Hospital" - in reference to the explosion at the Baptist hospital for which the Palestinian blame Israel, but Israelis presented evidence which it said showed was caused by a rocket fired from inside Gaza.

 



https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-67165505

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

In my experience, when I hear someone say Zionism or some derivative of the term, I know some bigoted shit is about to come out.   I grew up in South Florida.  I don't think I ever heard a Jewish person use that term once.  But Neo-Nazi's sure love it.   Palestinians sure love it.  Just saying.....

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nivek said:

In my experience, when I hear someone say Zionism or some derivative of the term, I know some bigoted shit is about to come out.   I grew up in South Florida.  I don't think I ever heard a Jewish person use that term once.  But Neo-Nazi's sure love it.   Palestinians sure love it.  Just saying.....

 

 

Edited by MC Fresh Breath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Nivek said:

In my experience, when I hear someone say Zionism or some derivative of the term, I know some bigoted shit is about to come out.   I grew up in South Florida.  I don't think I ever heard a Jewish person use that term once.  But Neo-Nazi's sure love it.   Palestinians sure love it.  Just saying.....

 

i do hope you listened to the entire thing.  it is possible to be anti-zionist/against the Israeli Apartheid State, and not be a bigot.  Many Jews hold the same beliefs.

 

Edited by MC Fresh Breath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been a lot of discussion about how the West Bank experience proves that abandoning terrorism was a mistake and Gaza had good reason to for Hamas as a better alternative:

 

This is important context because as shitty as things are in how Israel treats West Bank, it is undeniable that it’s better to be a Palestinian there than in Gaza— whether that’s economics or security. 
 

Diplomacy gets tossed around like it’s an option on the drop-down menu, but there needs to be certain conditions met for it to be an option.  The pressing issues for West Bank— stopping illegal settlements, policing settler violence against Palestinians, logistics of control of Jerusalem, expanded political and civil rights of Palestinians— are issues where diplomacy can be deployed. You have parties (Israel and the PA) that have in the past made concessions, you have specific things to talk about, there is a desired end state that can be seen.  These problems aren’t intractable and there are similar problems elsewhere that got chalked up to “ethnic hate” that proved soluble. 
 

You cannot sprinkle some diplomacy on the Hamas problem. It is not an insurgency, it’s an apocalyptic group with a genocidal charter, with outside backers, that has installed itself as the authority in Gaza. There is not a party to do diplomacy with and the issues at play are not ones where either side can make concessions without surrendering its own core interests. Something kinetic is always going to be needed. 

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

24 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

i do hope you listened to the entire thing.  it is possible to be anti-zionist/against the Israeli Apartheid State, and not be a bigot.  Many Jews hold the same beliefs.

 

There wasn't anything substantive in there.  Just a rant.  Nothing I haven't heard before.   No one ever said Israel's hands are clean, yet some people act like they are teaching us.  If you want to hash out every little offense, the find someone else.  I don't care.  Each side has blood on their hands and been bloodied.  That one side is better at killing than the other doesn't mean they should stop.  Dennison's silly statement to that effect was disabused earlier with an example of what that would look like in action.   Chainsaw is living in lala land.   His contributions would hold merit on Fantasy Island.   The social proof bullshit doesn't work on me.  It is one of Cialdini's principles I am largely immune to.   

Look at it from a macro scale.  Between the two groups, one would settle for peace.  The other seems like they only settle for chaos.   And don't start with that monolith bullshit.  Hamas is the government even if they like to pretend they are not or if anyone else on here likes to pretend otherwise.  They represent the Gazans.  

Everytime there is a chance for some peace agreement between Israel or someone else, suddenly Palestinians get to killing.  They killed the King of Jordan at a mosque.  They caused chaos in Lebanon, got Syria to invade Jordan.  Jordan defended them, took them in, and those assholes launched attacks from the refugee camps in Jordan against Israel and invited reprisals.   They wanted to overthrow the son of the King they killed, and they killed the Prime Minister of Jordan.  Why? because they wanted to stop the war with Israel.  Some fucking guests they were.   They know they are a lawless group with militants only interested in sowing discord.  There was a peace agreement and a path, and the Palestinians fucked it up.  Until they police their own, they will be on the receiving end of asskickings and bombings, and settlements and larger and larger buffer zones.   It is not just Israelis bulldozing their homes and lands, it is also the Egyptians (which no one seems to give a flying fuck about either for some reason).    Ask yourself why would they feel the need to create these buffer zones?   

Why do the pro-Palestinians types continue to ignore the chaos they have created in other nations?  Why do they continue to allow themselves to be used as pawns?  Why do they keep playing the stupid games with stupid prizes attached?   They are not going to win.  What you, Chainsaw, and Dennison seem to suggest, is the old appeasement strategy of Chamberlain just repackaged and rebottled.   So, tell me I am wrong.  Tell me the facts I presented are incorrect.  But argue legitimately.

 

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

7 minutes ago, Nivek said:

There wasn't anything substantive in there.  Just a rant.  Nothing I haven't heard before. 

 

I'll kind of do the same with your rant.  But I won't falsely imply bigotry.  Well, not yet.

Edit:

Quote

If you want to hash out every little offense, the find someone else.  I don't care.

 

That's kind of it in a nutshell, isn't it?  You don't care because it is easier to "both sides" this thing. I'll lump you in wit h Brisket and 956 and move on. Lolz at an apartheid state committing genocide being little offenses though.

Edited by MC Fresh Breath
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Nivek said:

There wasn't anything substantive in there.  Just a rant.  Nothing I haven't heard before.   No one ever said Israel's hands are clean, yet some people act like they are teaching us.  If you want to hash out every little offense, the find someone else.  I don't care.  Each side has blood on their hands and been bloodied.  That one side is better at killing than the other doesn't mean they should stop.  Dennison's silly statement to that effect was disabused earlier with an example of what that would look like in action.   Chainsaw is living in lala land.   His contributions would hold merit on Fantasy Island.   The social proof bullshit doesn't work on me.  It is one of Cialdini's principles I am largely immune to.   

Look at it from a macro scale.  Between the two groups, one would settle for peace.  The other seems like they only settle for chaos.   And don't start with that monolith bullshit.  Hamas is the government even if they like to pretend they are not or if anyone else on here likes to pretend otherwise.  They represent the Gazans.  

Everytime there is a chance for some peace agreement between Israel or someone else, suddenly Palestinians get to killing.  They killed the King of Jordan at a mosque.  They caused chaos in Lebanon, got Syria to invade Jordan.  Jordan defended them, took them in, and those assholes launched attacks from the refugee camps in Jordan against Israel and invited reprisals.   They wanted to overthrow the son of the King they killed, and they killed the Prime Minister of Jordan.  Why? because they wanted to stop the war with Israel.  Some fucking guests they were.   They know they are a lawless group with militants only interested in sowing discord.  There was a peace agreement and a path, and the Palestinians fucked it up.  Until they police their own, they will be on the receiving end of asskickings and bombings, and settlements and larger and larger buffer zones.   It is not just Israelis bulldozing their homes and lands, it is also the Egyptians (which no one seems to give a flying fuck about either for some reason).    Ask yourself why would they feel the need to create these buffer zones?   

Why do the pro-Palestinians types continue to ignore the chaos they have created in other nations?  Why do they continue to allow themselves to be used as pawns?  Why do they keep playing the stupid games with stupid prizes attached?   They are not going to win.  What you, Chainsaw, and Dennison seem to suggest, is the old appeasement strategy of Chamberlain just repackaged and rebottled.   So, tell me I am wrong.  Tell me the facts I presented are incorrect.  But argue legitimately.

 

See, there was this poll done in Gaza.  That explains it all and how the world should be.  You haven’t been paying attention apparently. 

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

On 10/19/2023 at 4:14 PM, BeardIP said:

Too be fair in criticizing Israel, it strikes me that Israel is trying to subjugate a people in a modern era where you can’t do that anymore. It’s like  if Dick Butkus tried to play Mike linebacker today. Israel needs to understand you can’t choke a nation out until there is no will or fight left— the world is too flat and cameras too 4k.

It's happening regularly, even in this day and age. 

The only time it's not possible is when there are strong militarized advocates for the weaker group*

Edit - that are willing to actually do something to help defend the weaker group by force, either through direct intervention or the supply of a gratuitous amount of weapons and support. 

The idea it can't happen any more sounds naive to me. Which sounds like an attack on your position, for which I apologize. You don't sound naive. Just this statement. 

Edited by SL Xpress
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...