-->
@Best.Korea
You're lying
Strike a Blow at Tel Aviv!
Posts
Total:
200
-->
@ponikshiy
No, they get options. Nuke to the face or accept our will.
this would lead to israel's destruction. all it's neighbors would see it as an evil tyrant and the west is not going to help if they are threatening to use nukes offensively.
Categorically false. There is a reason why zorastrians are nearly extinct while jews, christians and Muslims coexist peacefully in Jerusalem.
because the muslims chose to tolerate other religions? I'm confused by what you are going for here.
Nobody is suggesting that nonsense
what? you literally just said Israel may have to expel all Palestinians and if any other country says no, Israel should nuke them. Those are yourwords.
I find it odd though that you are defending the side who wishes to kill 6 million plus jews currently in Israel in a new holocaust as the victims of the Nazi Jews.
im not siding with anyone. Both sides have done truly evil things. And those things are going to continue until a solution is negotiated. At the moment, Israel isn't willing to consider any negotiated solution. Therefore they are ensuring the violence goes on forever.
plus jews currently in Israel in a new holocaust as the victims of the Nazi Jews.
the jews are causing a new holocaust? that's a bit much but yeah, their behavior towards the Palestinians has been bad and it is getting worse. An Israeli caused holocaust is certainly a strong possibility. The fact that they are ordering a million Palestinians to flee their homes and are bombing the evacuation route is a pretty big warning sign of this.
This is moral cowardice. It's no different than a person defending a rapist by pointing out the victim was wearing a short skirt and was in a bad part of town.
lol no. It's like seeing a fight between two murderers and not choosing a side. Both Hamas and the Israeli government are murderers and torturers. They are both evil. I don't defend either of them. I want a negotiated solution to bring an end to the violence. And only Israel can do that.
-->
@cristo71
I, too, question the wisdom of giving Jews a homeland right next to a people who wish them dead. It hasn’t worked out well. As I said earlier, the Arab League was given a seat at the table at the time of Israel’s creation and partitioning, but they boycotted it. Such unwillingness to compromise hasn’t worked out well, either.
that's fair. The palestinians and arab's in general have not exactly been welcoming and peaceful. They definitely have a role in the current quagmire.
And now, you seem to believe that people can support Hamas without being antisemitic themselves? This keeps getting better and better… or worse and worse.
perhaps I misread. but it is utterly beside the point. I agree Hamas is evil. So the exact degree to which they are evil is kind of splitting hairs. My point was that alot of palestinians want Israel destroyed. That opinion, in and of itself, is not antisemitic. We can, and should, point out the horrible things Israel does. And pretending like that commentary is antisemitic is counter productive.
I didn’t bring it up. To remind you, YOU tried to establish a moral equivalence by speculating that the Israelis are just as against a Palestinian state as vice versa. I have said that rather than speculate on it, look it up… “Israel’s views on a Palestinian state.” But I also said that you are very dug in on the issue, meaning that such a search might not sway you at all.
I have no idea what you are trying to do here. If you have a point to make, make it. I don't know why you are pussy footing around refusing to tell me what you are talking about.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Let hamas surrender first
-->
@HistoryBuff
This is from a wiki article about international views on Palestinian statehood:
Israeli positionBetween the end of the Six-Day War and the Oslo Accords, no Israeli government proposed a Palestinian state. During Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government of 1996–1999, he accused the two previous governments of Rabin and Peres of bringing closer to realisation what he claimed to be the "danger" of a Palestinian state, and stated that his main policy goal was to ensure that the Palestinian Authority did not evolve beyond an autonomy.[25]In November 2001, Ariel Sharon was the first Israeli Prime Minister to proclaim that a Palestinian state was the solution to the conflict and the goal of his administration.[citation needed] The government headed by Ehud Olmert repeated the same objective. Following the inauguration of the present Netanyahu government in 2009, the government again claimed that a Palestinian state posed a danger for Israel.[26] The government position changed, however, following pressure from the Obama administration, and on 14 June 2009, Netanyahu for the first time made a speech in which he supported the notion of a demilitarized and territorially reduced Palestinian state.[27] This position met some criticism for its lack of commitment on the territories to be ceded to the Palestinian state in the future.The Israeli government has accepted in general the idea that a Palestinian state is to be established, but has refused to accept the 1967 borders. Israeli military experts have argued that the 1967 borders are strategically indefensible.[28] It also opposes the Palestinian plan of approaching the UN General Assembly on the matter of statehood, as it claims it does not honor the Oslo Accords agreement in which both sides agreed not to pursue unilateral moves.[29]
Plus, there is also a wiki article on Israeli views on the peace process, which I have not read yet.
-->
@Vegasgiants
Israel should surrender immediatelly.
-->
@Best.Korea
You misspelled attack
-->
@Vegasgiants
Israeli should return to USA, but first return 1 trillion dollars that USA gave them.
-->
@Best.Korea
Hamas shoukd kill themselves
-->
@Vegasgiants
Great. First you were promoting land theft. Now you promote suicides. I wonder whats next.
-->
@Best.Korea
Yeah its wonderful
Go israel!!!!!!!
-->
@cristo71
This is from a wiki article about international views on Palestinian statehood:
ok, it's a slightly more diplomatic message than hamas for sure. they have, at certain points, made vague statements saying that a Palestinian state could exist because the US forced them to without ever confirming what such a state might look like. But then immediately make sure that such a state is impossible. Building settlements on stolen land while at the same time saying that maybe the Palestinians could have a state are opposite positions. Saying they could have their land back (because the US is making you) while also making sure you can't/wont ever give it back shows the 1st statement was a lie.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Do you believe the Israeli government has committed the moral equivalent of intentionally targeting infants for beheading and posting proof of execution/kidnapping to people’s Facebook pages?
-->
@cristo71
Do you believe the Israeli government has committed the moral equivalent of intentionally targeting infants for beheading and posting proof of execution/kidnapping to people’s Facebook pages?
they keep millions of people in an open air prison while cutting off their access to food, medicine etc. Is torturing children better than beheading them? I honesty don't know the answer to that question. I just know both are evil.
-->
@HistoryBuff
if Hamas uses the Palestine peoples money to build bunkers and rockets instead of desalination plants, wouldn't you want to eradicate Hamas so that the children could have water? What about the parents of those children that support Hamas...eradicate them too to save the Palestine children from an open air prison of their own making?
-->
@HistoryBuff
Is torturing children better than beheading them?
I don’t see the two as equivalent at all because I believe that intent matters. If you shoot an attacker, and the bullet goes through him and ricochets and also hits a child, that is quite different from finding a child and shooting him. Also:
-Hamas knew exactly what Israel would do after their massacre, so Hamas basically caused the response intentionally.
-There are Israeli hostages also being “tortured” by Israel shutting off power. I’m sure you even agree that isn’t by intent.
-The intent of shutting off power is to flush out Hamas and the hostages, not to torture children.
-->
@cristo71
It's amazing how little most people know about Gaza beyond the conveniently contrived chirons on establishment media. Gaza is no better than any place in Africa ruled by a warlord's fist (Hamas). All of those places are worse than an "open air prison." More like an open air torture chamber.
Hamas is like Biden in that they are both incompetent, insensitive to the suffering of their own people, and need to create chaos in order to maintain power. God help us.
-->
@Greyparrot
It is telling that Muslim countries are very reluctant to take Palestinian refugees. Do they assimilate poorly even in nations with a common religion?
Iran supports Hamas, even though they belong to opposing sects of Islam. The common thread is, of course, the goal of killing Jews. As I see it, the fundamental point of difference between Hamas and the Israeli government is this: the Israeli government’s central motivation is preserving their citizens’ lives (not only Jews) and the Jewish state; Hamas central motivation is destroying Jewish lives and the Jewish state.
It simply is a non starter for peaceful negotiations.
-->
@Greyparrot
if Hamas uses the Palestine peoples money to build bunkers and rockets instead of desalination plants, wouldn't you want to eradicate Hamas so that the children could have water?
what a weird question. they are being trapped in an open air prison while Israel cuts them off from food, medicine etc. Is a desalination plant going to help them escape from their eternal prison? I'm not saying that Hamas' plan is a good one. I'm not saying that they aren't evil, they do evil things. But it's been decades and Israel is as far away as they have ever been from freeing the Palestinians. Being nice to Israel isn't going to help them, it might make their imprisonment a little less shitty, but they would stay prisoners forever.
What about the parents of those children that support Hamas...eradicate them too to save the Palestine children from an open air prison of their own making?
they certainly had a hand in the events that created it. But it is Israeli fences closing them in. It is Israeli machine guns and snipers that kill hundreds of Palestinians every year.
I don’t see the two as equivalent at all because I believe that intent matters. If you shoot an attacker, and the bullet goes through him and ricochets and also hits a child, that is quite different from finding a child and shooting him.
that's true. Intent absolutely matters. Let's say I locked a family in my basement. I starve them, I beat them, I never let them leave. Then one day they break out and try to kill me so I kill them all, men women and children. Is that self defense? They were certainly trying to kill me. But you could just as easily say that they were defending themselves from me by trying to kill me.
Israel has treated the palestinians like dogs for decades. They regularly kill hundreds of them. They keep them imprisoned. They blockade them from receiving basic supplies. Then they, very predictably, lash out at their jailors. The jailors now say they are defending themselves. The prisoners say they are defending themselves. They are both kind of right. they are both kind of wrong.
-Hamas knew exactly what Israel would do after their massacre, so Hamas basically caused the response intentionally.
probably. And ben-gvir knew what he was doing would trigger a response from Hamas. (visiting al aqsa mosque among many other things). The Israeli government knew the things they were doing would trigger a violent backlash, they did them anyway for political reasons. Hamas knew what they were doing would cause a violent backlash, they did it anyway for political reasons.
-There are Israeli hostages also being “tortured” by Israel shutting off power. I’m sure you even agree that isn’t by intent.
by torture, I don't just mean the power being turned off. Although that certainly is included. But keeping them imprisoned and blockaded, shooting them if they do things the Israeli military doesn't like, etc. They have been systemically targeting the palestinians for decades.
-The intent of shutting off power is to flush out Hamas and the hostages, not to torture children.
that is only the latest in a very long line of very shitty things Israel has done to them.
-->
@HistoryBuff
The tit for tat on this issue can go on ad infinitum, which is why I look for the more fundamental aspects of the issue. As I said in post 168, I see the motives as quite different between the two. Hamas’ charter even admits that they wish the destruction of Jews and the Jewish state. Believing as they do in a paradise afterlife, Hamas value death more than this life. That belief is how they can sacrifice themselves and so many of their own innocents for their goal. In contrast, Jews value life over death. Their motive is the preservation of the Jewish state and the safety of its citizens. One can fashion a compromise consistent with the Israeli government’s goals of self preservation, but how does one compromise with wishes of total destruction?
-->
@cristo71
Believing as they do in a paradise afterlife, Hamas value death more than this life. That belief is how they can sacrifice themselves and so many of their own innocents for their goal. In contrast, Jews value life over death. Their motive is the preservation of the Jewish state and the safety of its citizens.
that is a super simplistic take on it. There is a better one. The Israeli's are rich and powerful and control the thing they want to control. so their goal is preservation of the wealth and power they already possess. They aren't looking to sacrifice themselves because they don't need to, they already have pretty much won. Hamas is poor and largely powerless. Their country has been taken from them. Their people are poor, starving, and imprisoned. They are willing to risk much more because they have much less to lose.
You can see this same dynamic in lots of other conflicts. The vietnam war for example. The US wanted to minimize casualties and just reign destruction on their enemies from afar and to not risk themselves. The Vietnamese were willing to take horrific causalities because they had to win or die.
The side that is weaker in a conflict always has to be willing to take more risks and higher losses. If they aren't, then they are doomed.
One can fashion a compromise consistent with the Israeli government’s goals of self preservation, but how does one compromise with wishes of total destruction?
I mean, obviously the 2 goals cannot both be accomplished. But, to me, it's a bit like Taiwan still claiming to be the rightful government of all of china. they know they aren't. The rest of the world knows they aren't. but they still have to say it. I'd say there is a good chance that some, if not most of the leadership of Hamas would like to destroy Israel. But I think, much like Taiwan, most can see the writing is on the wall and that isn't going to happen. But maintaining the claim is still part of their political platform.
But I would argue that Israel's goal is not "self preservation". It is maintaining as much of the land they have taken as possible. The settlements are proof of this. Those settlements are illegal. They make peace more difficult, if not impossible, and almost guarantee more attacks. If they really were looking for self preservation, those settlements are counter productive. But they build more of them year after year. It's because it's not about survival. It's about making sure they keep all that land in any future resolution.
It might even be about trying to trigger Hamas into doing something terrible so that Israel could have a pretext to something terrible themselves, like expel millions of palestinians. Bibi's popularity is not doing well in Israel. At best his government was massively negligent. At worst they allowed this attack to happen even though they knew it was coming because they wanted an excuse to attack Hamas.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Bibi's popularity is not doing well in Israel. At best his government was massively negligent. At worst they allowed this attack to happen even though they knew it was coming because they wanted an excuse to attack Hamas.
These are points which I could possibly entertain. There is also an explanation that Netanyahu has been so concerned with internal politics that he was distracted from external threats. Your other points about power roles seem to assume that things would be much the same if the power roles were reversed. Power paradigm arguments strike me as simplistic, so we will have to agree to disagree…
Boy do I feel great today, having just donated $500 to Israel in order to trigger antisemite fascists. If they keep pissing me off I just might donate $500 more.
(This isn't actually directed toward the OP or anyone here, but someone else on the internet who I can't directly communicate with at the moment. The donation was real though.)
-->
@Swagnarok
You'll be shoxxored when Israel repeats the cycle and the soft bellies capitulate and send your 500 dollars for relief for Gazans....
-->
@cristo71
There is also an explanation that Netanyahu has been so concerned with internal politics that he was distracted from external threats.
yes, that would be the massive negligence part. If you are allowing your internal politics distract you from doing your job, you are negligent. So the best read possible is that he failed at his job and allowed alot of people to be killed. At least 2 countries have said they knew an attack was coming and warned Israel. Yet they still got caught with their pants down.
Your other points about power roles seem to assume that things would be much the same if the power roles were reversed. Power paradigm arguments strike me as simplistic, so we will have to agree to disagree…
You are kind of twisting my argument. I said that you can see the exact same dynamics play out in other conflicts. You choose to make a religious/ethnic argument about Hamas and try to paint them as somehow unique. But when their actions can easily be explained by comparing them to other conflicts, this seems like a very weak argument. Their tactics are not all that different from other groups that have been in similar situations, so saying that their actions are because of their religion just seems kind of bigoted. you want to make it about them/their religion, and not about the situation Israel has put them in. Because if it is all about their religion, then just blaming them is easy. If their actions are as a result of the situation Israel largely created, then you would have to acknowledge that Israel bares some responsibility for their actions.
-->
@HistoryBuff
yes, that would be the massive negligence part. If you are allowing your internal politics distract you from doing your job, you are negligent. So the best read possible is that he failed at his job and allowed alot of people to be killed. At least 2 countries have said they knew an attack was coming and warned Israel. Yet they still got caught with their pants down.
Agreed
You are kind of twisting my argument.
Not at all. Here is a direct quote from your post 133:
If the leadership of Hamas was given godlike powers with no consequences, I'm sure they would make all Israeli's disappear. But if the situation were reversed and the Palestinians had power, they would likely act like Israel does. They know that wiping out the Israeli's would trigger a response from the west, so they slowly strangle them and steal more and more land until there is no way for a peaceful resolution to happen. Then you use some excuse to make it look like the jews are "barbaric" and then you can kill or expel them. Which is exactly what israel is doing. And I have every confidence if Israel had such a godlike power, all Palestinians would cease to exist.
Perhaps you would like to modify this, but I can only address what you actually write.
I said that you can see the exact same dynamics play out in other conflicts. You choose to make a religious/ethnic argument about Hamas and try to paint them as somehow unique. But when their actions can easily be explained by comparing them to other conflicts, this seems like a very weak argument. Their tactics are not all that different from other groups that have been in similar situations, so saying that their actions are because of their religion just seems kind of bigoted.
I don’t recall you illustrating the exact same dynamics elsewhere, but please point to your post where such an example is provided. I am not a cultural relativist, no. I don’t see all religions and cultures as equal nor do I judge behavior via power structures. I could describe your views with pejorative labels, but I refrain because you have not solicited my opinion on that, you would not value my opinion if I offered it, and it would ultimately be pointless (hint).
-->
@cristo71
Not at all. Here is a direct quote from your post 133:
oh, i see. You are replying to something I said 40 comments ago and not what I said in the comment you are replying to.
I don’t recall you illustrating the exact same dynamics elsewhere, but please point to your post where such an example is provided.
I offered the example of the vietnam war. The viet kong engaged in lots of activity that could be described as terrorism. They regularly murdered people for co-operating with the americans. They hid bombs, they killed civilians, they used terror as a weapon. they didn't do any of this for cultural or religious reasons, it was simply the best tactic available to them in their situation. If they had lost the war, the west would have painted them as terrorists and murders. But they won. So they are remembered as freedom fighters and patriots.
But when Hamas uses similar tactics, you ascribe it to their religion or culture. That is bigotry. You want it to be the cause of their actions because it is the simplest way to put all the blame on them. If hamas somehow won the war, forced all the jews to flee Israel, they would be lauded as heroes and patriots by significant portions of the world.
-->
@HistoryBuff
oh, i see. You are replying to something I said 40 comments ago and not what I said in the comment you are replying to.
So… taking you at your earlier and unrecanted word in the same convo is now somehow out of bounds or unfair? Seriously?
I offered the example of the vietnam war. The viet kong engaged in lots of activity that could be described as terrorism. They regularly murdered people for co-operating with the americans. They hid bombs, they killed civilians, they used terror as a weapon. they didn't do any of this for cultural or religious reasons, it was simply the best tactic available to them in their situation.
Ah, I remember now. Yes, I see that as fundamentally different in a few ways. I’m not going to write a book about it here, of course (at least I hope that is obvious). But a book COULD be written about the issue you bring up, if not already written. The Viet Cong did not openly state or demonstrate pure hatred and destruction of the South Vietnamese people other than as being party to a puppet government. If South Vietnamese people wanted to join their cause, they were welcome to it. It was politically rather than group identity motivated. The Viet Cong did not intentionally sacrifice their own innocents to the same extent and same eagerness as Hamas. But yes, revolution/civil war often causes a high body count whether rooted in allegiance to god or the state. Sacrificial suicide does require more bravery from an atheist than one who believes in an eternal reward, though.
I now understand your position and the reasons for it, though, so my curiosity is fulfilled.
But when Hamas uses similar tactics, you ascribe it to their religion or culture. That is bigotry. You want it to be the cause of their actions because it is the simplest way to put all the blame on them.
Well, this convo is circling the drain quickly. Time to put a fork in it… (yes, I’m mixing my metaphors)
-->
@cristo71
So… taking you at your earlier and unrecanted word in the same convo is now somehow out of bounds or unfair? Seriously?
I never said it was out of bounds. But if you are responding to something said 40 comments ago instead of what I said recently, you should be much more clear what you are talking about. We've talked about lots of stuff, randomly going back to something from awhile ago without telling me which comment you are replying to makes it difficult to understand your comments.
the Viet Cong did not openly state or demonstrate pure hatred and destruction of the South Vietnamese people other than as being party to a puppet government.
In this context, america would be the Israelis, not the south vietnamese. And they definitively did state hatred for america.
If South Vietnamese people wanted to join their cause, they were welcome to it
and hamas would readily welcome palestinians living in Israel. It is no different.
The Viet Cong did not intentionally sacrifice their own innocents to the same extent and same eagerness as Hamas.
what are you talking about? They constantly hid weapons cache's in villages forcing the americans to attack them, bomb them, burn them etc. they regularly terrorized civilians in areas that were sympathetic to the south's government forcing them to hide weapons for them, forcing them to fight for the viet kong. They did almost exactly the same things as hamas.
You want to believe that hamas is evil because of their culture/religion. Because if that is the reason, then they can be condemned without having to look at Israel's actions. But if you look at their actions in the same lens as other conflicts, you very quickly see that most people put into a situation like the Palestinians have been put in will start using tactics similar to Hamas. They are not unique. It has happened before all over the world, and it will happen again. You push people to the brink and make them desperate enough, they will lash out with anything and everything they've got.