Israel

[956 Worldwide 34710]

I fucking love General Dynamics, the F-16 was and is a triumph but Northrop Grumman is the new hotness for the B-21.  Our MIC is cool as shit: 

 

[Anastasis 23469]

6 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Our MIC is cool as shit:

Clearly endearing our interests and values to the world. 

 

Hard to tell, but is the 7 of clubs that time we hooked that guy up to jumper cables and made him stand on a box, cause that was cool as shit. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by Anastasis

[956 Worldwide 34710]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Clearly endearing our interests and values to the world. 

 

Hard to tell, but is the 7 of clubs that time we hooked that guy up to jumper cables and made him stand on a box, cause that was cool as shit. 

Let the losers buy Sukhoi comrade. 
 

 

[RomaVicta 29907]

I've only read this page, but I think antipathy towards Anastasis is affecting judgment around here. I agree what I've read of his on this page.

Perceptions that strike me as odd:

Hamas will exterminate Israel if we don't support Israel right now in their shamelessly brutal slaughter in Gaza. This page has a lot of posters that I respect. They are intelligent enough to recognize what Israel perpetrates in the West Bank and Gaza and even use the harshest terms to describe them. Hamas deserves whatever fate they meet. They are not an existential threat to the country that is leveling Gaza with impugnity and support from this country.

Opposition to American military support must mean the opposer doesn't care about Israel at best and is fine with Israel paying for their crimes by being genocided off the planet. Nope. Were the situation reversed and Israel under the kind of attack they have launched in Gaza, I would support more than materiel support. I'd be fine commiting forces to the fray. I think the position that Gaza and the Palestinians shouldn't be subject to this slaughter is a position against slaughter such as this in general rather than a particular sympathy for the Palestinians. I have the impression that I'm describing the position of many people on this page.

I'll tiresomely repeat my stance. I don't want my country associated with the vicious slaughter going on in Gaza. I would halt all materiel aid right now. I would extend humanitarian aid and support to both countries as needed; clearly the greater need there is in the country that has sustained a lengthy attack by heavy, conventional forces.

Some have answered that stopping military support would spell the end of Israel. Again, nope. Suspension of war aid need not be a permanent policy no matter what. As I said above, I wouldn't be party to seeing any nation or people obliterated. As Jerry said to George once, "We're trying to have a civilization here."

Written without rancor.

Edited December 14, 2023 by RomaVicta

[RomaVicta 29907]

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And you're just happy to push for measures that will please Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, and the usual crew

Would you base any policy on whether or not it "pleases" the entities you list? I wouldn't.

The only standard for US policy (I know this is naive considering the state of the republic) should be does it serve the long term interests of the US. If making a decision using that standard, I would hardly be swayed by someone pointing out that this act may "please" a bunch of terrorist groups and their state supporters.

I wouldn't care if anyone liked or disliked an action determined by the standard I describe above. The only weight that would have would be in the decision about our interests. If a policy were to benefit us only if it didn't trigger violence against us, I would have to weigh the likelihood of that action not that sentiment.

Edited December 14, 2023 by RomaVicta

[Brisketexan 105124]

12 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Would you base any policy on whether or not it "pleases" the entities you list? I wouldn't.

The only standard for US policy (I know this is naive considering the state of the republic) should be does it serve the long term interests of the US. If making a decision using that standard, I would hardly be swayed by someone pointing out that this act may "please" a bunch of terrorist groups and their state supporters.

I wouldn't care if anyone liked or disliked an action determined by the standard I describe above. The only weight that would have would be in the decision about our interests. If a policy were to benefit us only if it didn't trigger violence against us, I would have to weigh the likelihood of that action not that sentiment.

I dunno.  When I am thinking of taking a position, and I see that the position would put me in the corner of the worst fucking people in the room.....I rethink the shit outta that position.

See, e.g., thinking anything that the guys on Texags would cheer and call "good bull."  If you find yourself thinking such things, you should probably pause and reconsider.  Never, ever agree with Texags -- that's a pretty good damned rule for living.  Likewise, if I am considering taking a position, and in doing so, would get loud cheers from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the islamofascist regime in Iran.....yep, I'd reconsider.

[RomaVicta 29907]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I dunno.  When I am thinking of taking a position, and I see that the position would put me in the corner of the worst fucking people in the room.....I rethink the shit outta that position.

See, e.g., thinking anything that the guys on Texags would cheer and call "good bull."  If you find yourself thinking such things, you should probably pause and reconsider.  Never, ever agree with Texags -- that's a pretty good damned rule for living.  Likewise, if I am considering taking a position, and in doing so, would get loud cheers from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the islamofascist regime in Iran.....yep, I'd reconsider.

Consideration is a great thing.

Still, if the answer is that what you are doing is in the best interests of the country, would you deprive your country of benefit just because a bunch of dickheads are glad about it?

I truly don't think so.

[Anastasis 23469]

24 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Still, if the answer is that what you are doing is in the best interests of the country, would you deprive your country of benefit just because a bunch of dickheads are glad about it?

I truly don't think so.

That's not how this works. If you point out the absolute absurdity and inconsistency in American foreign policy you are basically a terrorist. If you ask for an assessment based on long-run outcomes, you are called aggy with no hint of self reflection. If you consider historical context behind any of this, it is [boogeymen of your choosing] talking point. There are no objective rules. There is no order. And there is only Pax if you squint your eyes. Just punch the fucking ticket. 

[Brisketexan 105124]

That's not how this works. If you point out the absolute absurdity and inconsistency in American foreign policy you are basically a terrorist. If you ask for an assessment based on long-run outcomes, you are called aggy with no hint of self reflection. If you consider historical context behind any of this, it is [boogeymen of your choosing] talking point. There are no objective rules. There is no order. And there is only Pax if you squint your eyes. Just punch the fucking ticket. 

And if you consider the historical track records of “maybe we should just let the terrorist barbarians do as they please,” and “we ain’t helping the Jews, they’re on their own,” you’re just a Cheney-loving neo-con who thinks war is super-fun. I mean, isolationism worked out BRILLIANTLY for the world and especially the Jews last time we gave it a good run (just to pluck one example)….wait…am I considering history? I was told that I don’t do that, only Anastasis The Smug does that. I’m so confused.
Again, we can do this all fucking day, and it will be just as stupid as when you started the conversation.

[Anastasis 23469]

Y'all see how seamlessly he replaces "Palestinians" in this exchange with "terrorist barbarians". Brisket is a smart lawyer and wordsmith. He buys ink by the gallon. And he knows exactly what he is doing here rhetorically.  

[Anastasis 23469]

oh look, another terrorist barbarian. what a fucking ghoul. 

 

[Brisketexan 105124]

Y'all see how seamlessly he replaces "Palestinians" in this exchange with "terrorist barbarians". Brisket is a smart lawyer and wordsmith. He buys ink by the gallon. And he knows exactly what he is doing here rhetorically.  

Nope. That’s not what I did at all. Yet it’s exactly what you did by attributing that equivocation to me. Straw man, but nobody here is surprised. One can’t be a critic of Hamas (you know, actual terrorist barbarians), and believing that Israel should fight back against Hamas, without that position being an attack on Palestinians and seeking their genocide…thus justifying the approach of casting Israel and Jews to the wind. Which is where you’ve always wanted to go, the pretext doesn’t much matter.
All fucking day. We can do this all fucking day, and at the end of it, the only one who will think you’ve been clever will be you. Just you.

[Anastasis 23469]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Israel should fight back against Hamas

We're well past that and into the realm of collective punishment. You know this. It doesn't require anyone being particularly clever to draw these lines. That you are unable to grasp this reality is not an indictment of anyone but yourself. 

[David Dennison 18856]

So, who's winning?

[Anastasis 23469]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So, who's winning?

General Dynamics. 

[InkaUtexas 25921]

And what should all sides do? Including the civilians.

[Anastasis 23469]

Just now, InkaUtexas said:

And what should all sides do? Including the civilians.

Going south isnt particularly working out for the civilians. 

[Brisketexan 105124]

We're well past that and into the realm of collective punishment. You know this. It doesn't require anyone being particularly clever to draw these lines. That you are unable to grasp this reality is not an indictment of anyone but yourself. 

I agree with your first sentence. I stated as much repeatedly in posts above. Which you didn’t bother to read/digest in your zeal to mount your well-ridden high horse. So, you saying I’m unable to grasp something that, umm, you ignored. Well, you’re consistently you, I’ll give you that.

[InkaUtexas 25921]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Going south isnt particularly working out for the civilians. 

No it isn't, so what should they do?

 

[TwiceHorn 31463]

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I fucking love General Dynamics, the F-16 was and is a triumph but Northrop Grumman is the new hotness for the B-21.  Our MIC is cool as shit: 

 

Just a reminder, GD is out of the military aviation business and has been for 30 years now.  Ships/subs, tanks, missiles, yes.  Fighters and bombers, no.

[Anastasis 23469]

28 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

No it isn't, so what should they do?

 

Stop existing. /Ben Gvir, Minister of National Security

[Anastasis 23469]

39 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I agree with your first sentence.

Great. So it should be easy for you to register your objection to US arms funded by Americans being used to enact collective punishment. This is not hard. At least it should not be. 

[InkaUtexas 25921]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Stop existing. /Ben Gvir, Minister of National Security

I am asking a real question.

Israel should not declare a ceasefire, but they should move to a contain and monitor. They have tools to liquidate Hamas without leveling the city. Aid should be allowed in, after checks by both Egypt and Israel.

Hamas should give back the hostages. That is short term to get some breathing space.

[Anastasis 23469]

Just now, InkaUtexas said:

I am asking a real question.

Israel should not declare a ceasefire, but they should move to a contain and monitor. They have tools to liquidate Hamas without leveling the city. Aid should be allowed in, after checks by both Egypt and Israel.

Hamas should give back the hostages. That is short term to get some breathing space.

Is the "they" in that question the civilians, or Israel?

[InkaUtexas 25921]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Is the "they" in that question the civilians, or Israel?

Israel.

[Anastasis 23469]

8 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Israel.

Nobody would shed a tear over mossad doing some mossad shit targeting Hamas leadership holed up Qatar. 

[Brian Fantana 6685]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Nobody would shed a tear over mossad doing some mossad shit targeting Hamas leadership holed up Qatar. 

QFT. Fuck 'em.

[statsman 5463]

9 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

 

Hamas should give back the hostages. That is short term to get some breathing space.

The easiest thing in the world is to provide a sign of life for any remaining hostage. Establishing the hostages are alive would be incredibly valuable to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. 
 
I suspect that any hostages that are not shown currently to be alive either aren’t alive, or are not well at all. 

[wildcat09 29354]

 

It's hard to escape the feeling that Netanyahu is intentionally waging this war in a manner that is at least in part intended to hurt Biden's re-election chances. 

[Don Johnson 4753]

https://pcpsr.org/en/node/961

Poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

 Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7^th offensive:

• We asked respondents to speculate about Hamas’ reasons for waging its October the 7th offensive: a response to attacks on al Aqsa and to release prisoners as Hamas claimed or an Iranian plot to thwart Arab normalization with Israel. The overwhelming majority (81%; 89% in the West Bank and 69% in the Gaza Strip) said it was a “response to settler attacks on Al-Aqsa Mosque and on Palestinian citizens and for the release of prisoners from Israeli prisons;” while only 14% (5% in the West Bank and 27% in the Gaza Strip) thought it was an Iranian plot. 
• We asked the respondents what they thought of Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive given its outcome so far, a vast majority (72%; 82% in the West Bank and 57% in the Gaza Strip) said it was a correct decision and 22% (12% in the West Bank and 37% in the Gaza Strip) said it was incorrect.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Don Johnson

[Brisketexan 105124]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

 

It's hard to escape the feeling that Netanyahu is intentionally waging this war in a manner that is at least in part intended to hurt Biden's re-election chances. 

Bibi has two priorities:

1) staying in power at all costs to save his ass from prison, and

2) doing anything he can to get Trump re-elected, because Trump will help cover Bibi's ass.

That's it.  Note how I didn't list "take action for the long-term good of Israel" in there?  That's because it's not even a minor factor.

[RomaVicta 29907]

13 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Going south isnt particularly working out for the civilians. 

 

13 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

No it isn't, so what should they do?

 

I suppose they could stop listening to Israeli assurances about safe areas because the Israelis bomb those place, too.

As I wrote above, I'm only just rejoining this thread and have only read this page. Maybe that explains my befuddlement with your question, @InkaUtexas. Have you suggested something in this regard on earlier pages?

The Palestinian civilians seem helpless and increasingly diminished by hunger, violence, homelessness, and grief to me. 

Seeing the photo above illustrating what kind of medical procedures are going on without anesthetic is an absolute outrage to me. As president, I would inform Israel that we are going to fly into Gazan airspace and conduct air drops to hospitals and refugee clusters. No matter their answer, those airdrops would procede. 

If the military brass could assure that Americans could land on the coast to truck in supplies with only slight risk of attack by Hamas, I'd quite possibly inform Israel that we are going to do that. And they need to stay clear of any risk of accidentally firing upon our people.

The consequences of Israeli interference with efforts to restore some level of civilization to Gaza would be a drastic change in our relationship.  Again, I don't want my name or my country's reputation attached to Israel's slaughter campaign.

[InkaUtexas 25921]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

 

I suppose they could stop listening to Israeli assurances about safe areas because the Israelis bomb those place, too.

As I wrote above, I'm only just rejoining this thread and have only read this page. Maybe that explains my befuddlement with your question, @InkaUtexas. Have you suggested something in this regard on earlier pages?

The Palestinian civilians seem helpless and increasingly diminished by hunger, violence, homelessness, and grief to me. 

Seeing the photo above illustrating what kind of medical procedures are going on without anesthetic is an absolute outrage to me. As president, I would inform Israel that we are going to fly into Gazan airspace and conduct air drops to hospitals and refugee clusters. No matter their answer, those airdrops would procede. 

If the military brass could assure that Americans could land on the coast to truck in supplies with only slight risk of attack by Hamas, I'd quite possibly inform Israel that we are going to do that. And they need to stay clear of any risk of accidentally firing upon our people.

The consequences of Israeli interference with efforts to restore some level of civilization to Gaza would be a drastic change in our relationship.  Again, I don't want my name or my country's reputation attached to Israel's slaughter campaign.

Yes I have. And I agree with that. Would not be the US though, it could be a multi-national force.

[wildcat09 29354]

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Bibi has two priorities:

1) staying in power at all costs to save his ass from prison, and

2) doing anything he can to get Trump re-elected, because Trump will help cover Bibi's ass.

That's it.  Note how I didn't list "take action for the long-term good of Israel" in there?  That's because it's not even a minor factor.

I'm not really sure Trump will want to help Bibi.  Trump thinks Bibi betrayed him by recognizing Biden's election.  Further, if Trump wins again, in his mind he won't think he needs to support Israel for political reasons any more.  Trump might be able to get over the personal anger if he's got a transactional reason to do so, but what would that be (in his mind)? If Trump is reelected, I think his line on Israel and on Jews will essentially be "Bibi and most Jews were very mean to me and they're a very disloyal group of people." 

[statsman 5463]

On 12/14/2023 at 10:45 AM, Don Johnson said:

https://pcpsr.org/en/node/961

Poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

 Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7^th offensive:

• We asked respondents to speculate about Hamas’ reasons for waging its October the 7th offensive: a response to attacks on al Aqsa and to release prisoners as Hamas claimed or an Iranian plot to thwart Arab normalization with Israel. The overwhelming majority (81%; 89% in the West Bank and 69% in the Gaza Strip) said it was a “response to settler attacks on Al-Aqsa Mosque and on Palestinian citizens and for the release of prisoners from Israeli prisons;” while only 14% (5% in the West Bank and 27% in the Gaza Strip) thought it was an Iranian plot. 
• We asked the respondents what they thought of Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive given its outcome so far, a vast majority (72%; 82% in the West Bank and 57% in the Gaza Strip) said it was a correct decision and 22% (12% in the West Bank and 37% in the Gaza Strip) said it was incorrect.

I’m not ready to condemn Palestinians in general for anti-Semitism, even buying these poll results. They live in a world where there is no “other side” opinion available. Their leaders have it all figured out for them. It’s kind of like surveying white southerners in Jim Crow America about race relations. After experiencing a civil rights movement, mass opinions began moving. 
 
(If I lived in WB or Gaza, and a stranger said he was taking a poll and asked what I thought of Hamas, I’m pretty sure I’d say, “They’re doing a great job!”)
 
Back to the topic of anti-semites participating in anti-Zionist campaigns. Why does it matter? It matters because as long as there are vocal and visible anti-Semites in that movement, their cries can be rejected as tarred by anti-Semitism. That’s just the facts. Those protestors need to clean their movement up. It’s stupid for them to count on non-partisans and pro-Israeli partisans to parse out the factions for them. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by statsman

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

I don't think every Pro-Palestinian is antisemitic.

I think a metric fuckton of not-antisemitic Pro-Palestinians do not realize that they are serving as "useful idiots" to promote antisemitism.

[BrickHorn 18230]

On 12/14/2023 at 10:45 AM, Don Johnson said:

https://pcpsr.org/en/node/961

Poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

 Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7^th offensive:

• We asked respondents to speculate about Hamas’ reasons for waging its October the 7th offensive: a response to attacks on al Aqsa and to release prisoners as Hamas claimed or an Iranian plot to thwart Arab normalization with Israel. The overwhelming majority (81%; 89% in the West Bank and 69% in the Gaza Strip) said it was a “response to settler attacks on Al-Aqsa Mosque and on Palestinian citizens and for the release of prisoners from Israeli prisons;” while only 14% (5% in the West Bank and 27% in the Gaza Strip) thought it was an Iranian plot. 
• We asked the respondents what they thought of Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive given its outcome so far, a vast majority (72%; 82% in the West Bank and 57% in the Gaza Strip) said it was a correct decision and 22% (12% in the West Bank and 37% in the Gaza Strip) said it was incorrect.

What a dumb fucking question. “Now that Country X is bombing the shit of your family and friends, do you approve of an attack against Country X?” Gee, I wonder how human beings in that situation will respond?

['stache 21813]

26 minutes ago, statsman said:

I’m not ready to condemn Palestinians in general for anti-Semitism, even buying these poll results. They live in a world where there is no “other side” opinion available. Their leaders have it all figured out for them. It’s kind of like surveying white southerners in Jim Crow America about race relations. After experiencing a civil rights movement, mass opinions began moving. 
 
(If I lived in WB or Gaza, and a stranger said he was taking a poll and asked what I thought of Hamas, I’m pretty sure I’d say, “They’re doing a great job!”)
 
Back to the topic of anti-semites participating in anti-Zionist campaigns. Why does it matter? It matters because as long as there are vocal and visible anti-Semites in that movement, their cries can be rejected as tarred by anti-Semitism. That’s just the facts. Those protestors need to clean their movement up. It’s stupid for them to count on non-partisans and pro-Israeli partisans to parse out the factions for them. 

 

15 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I don't think every Pro-Palestinian is antisemitic.

I think a metric fuckton of not-antisemitic Pro-Palestinians do not realize that they are serving as "useful idiots" to promote antisemitism.

I think Palestinian hatred for Israelis has more to do with their lived experiences than their religious beliefs. The latter would be a luxury for believers who aren't digging themselves and their loved ones out of collapsed buildings every few months. 

I'm curious though as to the last post. If someone supports the Palestinian people, how do you recommend they express it so as to not be considered antisemitic or a "useful idiot" for said antisemites? From what I can tell, anything pro-Palestinian is immediately shouted down as antisemetic or, as you say, useful to true antisemites. This is a genuine question and I hope it is read as such. Set aside people harassing delis and the like, I think we can all agree that even if those people don't have antisemetic intent that method isn't helpful and should be viewed as antisemetic or useful to antisemites.

Edited December 15, 2023 by 'stache

[Brisketexan 105124]

27 minutes ago, statsman said:

Back to the topic of anti-semites participating in anti-Zionist campaigns. Why does it matter? It matters because as long as there are vocal and visible anti-Semites in that movement, their cries can be rejected as tarred by anti-Semitism. That’s just the facts. Those protestors need to clean their movement up. It’s stupid for them to count on non-partisans and pro-Israeli partisans to parse out the factions for them. 

Well, you're missing the foundational reason why having the Palestinian movement tainted by a material antisemitic strain is a big problem.  The people who need to be most convinced to take a moderate approach as Israel, jews, and their supporters/allies.  And a very strong motivating factor in the thinking of those folks is "for 2000+ years, damned near everyone in the fucking world has tried to kill us all at one point or another.  We are always one tipping point away from the next pogrom/holocaust/genocide of the jews."  That's a real foundational belief, and it is not unmerited.

So, when one of the major reasons for Israeli recalcitrance, and jewish resistance to moderation, is "people are out to kill us all," presenting them with a position that features loud voices saying "yep, we absolutely want to kill you all" is truly the most counter-productive approach you can take.

Israel and the jewish community would very much like a baseline global agreement that "hey, jews can live, shouldn't be exterminated, and if anyone tries to do so, they are wrong and we will help jews defend themselves."  I mean, that's a fantasy, but I'm just pointing out the obvious: when one side in an adversarial engagement has a justifiable compulsive fear of "if I have any weakness, it will be exploited and the bad guys will try to exterminate me," you're going to have a very, very hard time getting any concessions from them.  So, showing up at the table where a material percentage of your team says "damn right I wanna kill em all!" is not going to be productive.  Yet, here we are.

Am I saying that the Israeli/jewish paranoia is helpful, rational, or even fully justified?  Nope.  I'm just observing that it is a thing, and it's not an entirely irrational thing.  It won't be going away anytime soon -- 2,000 years of cultural training of "tomorrow, the majority may turn on us and try to kill us all" is not easily wiped away.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Brisketexan

[wildcat09 29354]

23 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I don't think every Pro-Palestinian is antisemitic.

I think a metric fuckton of not-antisemitic Pro-Palestinians do not realize that they are serving as "useful idiots" to promote antisemitism.

Agreed. I also think a metric fuckton of not-antisemitic pro-Israeli folks do not realize they're also serving as useful idiots to promote antisemitism.  

[sheeeit 129]

On 12/13/2023 at 6:28 PM, RomaVicta said:

I've only read this page, but I think antipathy towards Anastasis is affecting judgment around here. I agree what I've read of his on this page.

Perceptions that strike me as odd:

Hamas will exterminate Israel if we don't support Israel right now in their shamelessly brutal slaughter in Gaza. This page has a lot of posters that I respect. They are intelligent enough to recognize what Israel perpetrates in the West Bank and Gaza and even use the harshest terms to describe them. Hamas deserves whatever fate they meet. They are not an existential threat to the country that is leveling Gaza with impugnity and support from this country.

Opposition to American military support must mean the opposer doesn't care about Israel at best and is fine with Israel paying for their crimes by being genocided off the planet. Nope. Were the situation reversed and Israel under the kind of attack they have launched in Gaza, I would support more than materiel support. I'd be fine commiting forces to the fray. I think the position that Gaza and the Palestinians shouldn't be subject to this slaughter is a position against slaughter such as this in general rather than a particular sympathy for the Palestinians. I have the impression that I'm describing the position of many people on this page.

I'll tiresomely repeat my stance. I don't want my country associated with the vicious slaughter going on in Gaza. I would halt all materiel aid right now. I would extend humanitarian aid and support to both countries as needed; clearly the greater need there is in the country that has sustained a lengthy attack by heavy, conventional forces.

Some have answered that stopping military support would spell the end of Israel. Again, nope. Suspension of war aid need not be a permanent policy no matter what. As I said above, I wouldn't be party to seeing any nation or people obliterated. As Jerry said to George once, "We're trying to have a civilization here."

Written without rancor.

"They are not an existential threat to the country that is leveling Gaza with impugnity and support from this country." 

This is absolute speculative bullshit.  If Iran or some other could figure out a way for Hamas to smuggle a "dirty bomb" into Israel they would do it in a heartbeat and Hamas would set it off in a heartbeat.  The continued rule by Hamas in Gaza is the literal definition of an existential threat to Israel.

"Nope. Were the situation reversed and Israel under the kind of attack they have launched in Gaza, I would support more than materiel support. I'd be fine commiting forces to the fray. I think the position that Gaza and the Palestinians shouldn't be subject to this slaughter is a position against slaughter such as this in general rather than a particular sympathy for the Palestinians. I have the impression that I'm describing the position of many people on this page."

This sort of perfectly illustrates the current thinking of so many.  Think about what you wrote?  You are against military aid to Israel right now because you believe that Israel has the upper hand.  Yet you readily admit you would be for military aid to Israel if the balance of power was reversed.  This is such a self rightous, self serving , its all about my feelings and my need to make myself feel good sentiment.  You are basically saying that in any conflict anywhere if one side has a perceived power advantage over the other that the side that is weaker can do almost anything to the powerful side and if the powerful side fights back they are immediately the opressor. 

 

 

[Brisketexan 105124]

10 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

"They are not an existential threat to the country that is leveling Gaza with impugnity and support from this country." 

I do also think that this is a terribly logically flawed take, regardless of which group/side you apply it to.  If you were to state that "rebuttal" accurately, it would really be "look, they aren't going to kill ALL of you....they're just going to kill as many of you as they can."  Imagine if someone said "I want to kill EVERYONE in your neighborhood, but due to ammo shortages, I can probably only kill 5% of you," would you be super comfortable taking your evening walk around the block?

Genocidal intent and action aren't diminished because of lack of capability (I mean, maybe it is diminished if there's functionally NO capability -- if Brisket says "I hate the Nepalese people, and I'm gonna kill em all!," but I don't even have a passport, I'm pretty sure Nepal won't be worrying about dumbass Brisket). 

And some reverse of that is true as well -- saying "I don't have any genocidal intent," but engaging in indiscriminate bombing that kills a large chunk of your population falls under the "actions speak louder than words" banner.  Nevermind that there are voices in Israeli leadership that ALSO voice genocidal intent to go with the indiscriminate bombing.

And yes, I think everyone here with a lick of sense knows that if Hamas had Israel's military capability, there would not be a living jew left in the levant.  That's a big problem, because Israel knows that too.

[Brian Fantana 6685]

1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I don't think every Pro-Palestinian is antisemitic.

I think a metric fuckton of not-antisemitic Pro-Palestinians do not realize that they are serving as "useful idiots" to promote antisemitism.

 

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Agreed. I also think a metric fuckton of not-antisemitic pro-Israeli folks do not realize they're also serving as useful idiots to promote antisemitism.  

Not to mention a lot of American Jews making the events of Oct. 7th about them and claiming antisemitism every time they get the smallest amount of pushback.

[956 Worldwide 34710]

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

 

Not to mention a lot of American Jews making the events of Oct. 7th about them and claiming antisemitism every time they get the smallest amount of pushback.

Somehow, I don’t think you’d be on board with telling Arab or Muslim Americans not to make the war in Gaza all about them and then claiming Islamophobia. 

[Neonmoon 38129]

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

 

Not to mention a lot of American Jews making the events of Oct. 7th about them and claiming antisemitism every time they get the smallest amount of pushback.

Um…is it not a little bit about them? 

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

If someone supports the Palestinian people, how do you recommend they express it so as to not be considered antisemitic or a "useful idiot" for said antisemites? From what I can tell, anything pro-Palestinian is immediately shouted down as antisemetic or, as you say, useful to true antisemites. This is a genuine question and I hope it is read as such. Set aside people harassing delis and the like, I think we can all agree that even if those people don't have antisemetic intent that method isn't helpful and should be viewed as antisemetic or useful to antisemites.

It's a valid question and honestly very tough to answer.

I can only speak for my opinion, but I would say that criticisms of the Israeli government, the seeming disregard for civilians, the general tone set forth by certain politicians both here and abroad, etc... that's all fair game.  Fuck Bibi.  But when folks start dipping their toes into talking about "Zionism" is when things tend to get a little messy.  I'm by no means saying that any criticism of Zionism is antisemitic, but I would say that most of the obviously antisemitic people have REALLY strong opinions on the topic.

And I'll acknowledge that there are bad actors claiming antisemitism in places where there  is none.  Fuck them, but please don't allow yourself to dismiss the notion of ANY antisemitism just because some jackasses are crying wolf.

And unrelated to the previous response, but another thing complicating the matter is that the groups, especially the unaffiliated third parties in America, are not speaking the same language.  We've talked about it ad nauseum regarding the "From the River to the Sea" chant, but here's a paragraph that sums it up pretty well:

 

Quote

Even the same words conjure completely different meanings in people’s minds. A liberal Western diplomat might hear “free Palestine” as a reasonable call for a two-state solution. Some inhabitants of the West Bank might hear it as a message of hope simply to end IDF occupation of their home city, while others would hear a call for annihilation of the foreign state occupying their entire homeland.

When your chant for peace is heard by many as a chant for destruction, how do we find a resolution?

Edited December 15, 2023 by Chuckie Finster

[DDD Dad 14339]

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

 

Not to mention a lot of American Jews making the events of Oct. 7th about them and claiming antisemitism every time they get the smallest amount of pushback.

Sort of like when those uppity black folks claim racism every time they get the smallest amount of pushback about anything.

Edited December 15, 2023 by DDD Dad

[Thetexashammer 1062]

5 hours ago, statsman said:

I’m not ready to condemn Palestinians in general for anti-Semitism, even buying these poll results. They live in a world where there is no “other side” opinion available. Their leaders have it all figured out for them. It’s kind of like surveying white southerners in Jim Crow America about race relations. After experiencing a civil rights movement, mass opinions began moving. 
 

I mean, sure. But do you see Christians killing muslims and screaming "God is Great!!!!WHARRRGABRBBBBBLLL" No. Because their definition of a "good person" in simply different than ours.

The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

[956 Worldwide 34710]

5 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

What a dumb fucking question. “Now that Country X is bombing the shit of your family and friends, do you approve of an attack against Country X?” Gee, I wonder how human beings in that situation will respond?

I think this is a pretty fair perspective.  Tell me, how do you think human beings might respond if one nice fall morning Country Y sent armed men to rape and murder many of your family and friends? Do you think that human beings in that situation might approve of bombing the shit out of Country Y? 

[Brisketexan 105124]

58 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I think this is a pretty fair perspective.  Tell me, how do you think human beings might respond if one nice fall morning Country Y sent armed men to rape and murder many of your family and friends? Do you think that human beings in that situation might approve of bombing the shit out of Country Y? 

No.  And they shouldn't.  Because they are zionist colonizers (and the part that is MOSTLY quiet but necessarily follows that statement is "and therefore they had it coming.")

The truth is often unpleasantly simple.

1 -- on October 7th, Hamas launched an attack that openly and proudly sought to kill and brutalize civilians, especially jews (they literally crowed about murdering "jews") in Israel.  When someone does that to you, that is going to stoke a raging fire of anger and hatred against the attacker.

2 -- in response to the October 7th attack, Israel has launched an overwhelming military response that has displace a metric shit ton of civilians, and kill thousands of civilians.  When someone does that to you, that is going to stoke a raging fire of anger and hatred against the attacker.

Do you see any prospects for anything other than "continued raging fires of anger and hatred" in both directions in the region?  I don't.  Everything we clamor about here -- ceasefires, a two state solution, are these chants really antisemitic?, Bibi's government sucks......they're just noise and don't matter a single bit.  The elements of burning hatred and violence in the respective societies are too big, burning too brightly, for anything else to even have a chance of poking through.

People have died.  More will die.  Lots more.  In both directions (yes, Hamas or some other Palestinian organization will eventually launch another successful attack against Israel and/or jews outside of Israel).  Nobody can stop what's coming.  There's too much human nature in play.