Israel

[WhatTheBuck 28941]

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

Nobody thinks Oct. 7 was good.

Except maybe Netanyahu and his fellow Jewzis like National Security Adviser Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s counterpart to Michael Flynn, who are exploiting the atrocity of 10/7 to justify their ultimate goal of cleansing Israel (aka Palestine) of all Palestinians (or non-“Jews,” which begins with Palestinian Arabs but will eventually include Israeli Arabs and will ultimately include secular Jews who aren’t committed to the new far-right Judeo-fascist ideology and will be labeled “anti-Semitic” and eliminated).

If history has taught us anything. 

[Brian Fantana 6876]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I assure you that my half-assed thoughts are mine alone.

And yes, I've grown increasingly frustrated and angry with Israel's response since it began.  Are we not supposed to adjust our thinking and opinions based on continuing developments?  Although I'm pretty sure that my responses in the week or so after October 7th included some version of the phrase "measured/targeted response."  But I haven't taken the time to go back and dig through the threads.

Oh, I've also learned a lot by watching the tennis match between the two "sides" on this thread.  Yeah, it's pretty fucking clear that one contingent....even though they pay minimal lip service to Israel's right to exist....view Israel primarily as evil colonizers who really should accede to circumstances that would lead to extinction of the state and massive violence against the jews within it.  And it's also pretty fucking clear that the other contingent views the Palestinians as evil mooslem animals who all like beheading infidels, so someone might as well wipe 'em off the map.

Sue me for being disgusted with both.

Forgive me for thinking this is copy pasted.

Brother you were literally calling this a holy war and practically hollering for blood when this latest conflict started. After all this time, you still can't see how heavily weighted your language is toward the Israeli side and how it's just another form of genocide apologia. It's sad, because like I have said many times in this thread, the only reason you're this way is that your perspective is so irredeemably twisted by swallowing the Western media narrative on this conflict whole, your entire life.

I don't know how to help you. Trying to bothsides everything about this conflict is not in your wheelhouse.

[Brian Fantana 6876]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Jewzis

[WhatTheBuck 28941]

7 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yes. Absolutely. It’s totally appropriate. It’s my term, I invented it and I hope it catches on. 

[WhatTheBuck 28941]

31 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

No, that was not my intent at all. 

No reasonable person thought it was. 

[BrickHorn 18451]

4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yeah wtf. Fascists are fascists. Their particular race or religion has zero to do with it. 

[Brisketexan 107041]

22 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Forgive me for thinking this is copy pasted.

Brother you were literally calling this a holy war and practically hollering for blood when this latest conflict started. After all this time, you still can't see how heavily weighted your language is toward the Israeli side and how it's just another form of genocide apologia. It's sad, because like I have said many times in this thread, the only reason you're this way is that your perspective is so irredeemably twisted by swallowing the Western media narrative on this conflict whole, your entire life.

I don't know how to help you. Trying to bothsides everything about this conflict is not in your wheelhouse.

I know that you take the fact that I am not 100% on board with your "Free Palestine, they are the good guys!" take means that I am inherently "Western media swallowed" (nevermind that I cited multiple times to Al Jazeera coverage, which I have watched and read for years, as just one example)....I've been pretty clear that Israel's hands "are and remain super unclean."  I mean, I literally said that exact thing mere days after the attacks.  Here's just a few of my snipped replies by date -- please point out for me the theme of how I am materially weighted towards Israel?  I mean, other than the fact that in the present context...Hamas was the aggressor, and Israel was the attacked entity.  I mean, re: October 7....yeah....I tilt Israel's way in terms of that event, and there being a justification for response (not the one that followed, but a response nonetheless).

Quote

Oct 11:

And that's the end conclusion.  We're too far down this road for anyone to turn back.  Some things are irreparably broken.  This is one of those things.  The Palestinians will hate the jews until the heat death of the universe, and will seek their extinction.  The jews will fight back, regularly being overly heavy-handed, provoking more response.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

Oct 11:

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

 

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

 

Oct 11:

I sympathize with innocent Palestinians who do not support genocide.  There are many such people.  I have long thought that Israel's approach to Palestinians and particularly the occupied territories is heavy-handed, counter-productive, and often criminal.  Don't mistake any of my posts as putting a white hat on Israel, or not sympathizing with innocent civilians.

But it is undeniable that the Palestinian CAUSE is in the hands of murderous genocidal shitbags, who have a shitload of support.  Hamas is not a "fringe group."  The belief that jews must be pushed into the sea and/or exterminated is not a "fringe belief."  Discounting those things as such is dishonest.

What came before -- good acts, bad acts, what have you -- doesn't much matter when you reach the point where one side's position boils down to "exterminate the other side."  That is a position from which no good-faith negotiation can occur.  And the most prominent actors on behalf of the Palestinian cause, who have significant popular support, take that exact position.  Until that is no longer a widely acceptable position in Palestinian society, no good-faith negotiations can happen.

Lots of sympathy for innocent Palestinians.

No absolution for Israel.

I am 100% on board with both principles.

But once we get past them, where do we go when "genocide" as a stated goal is the primary goal on the table?  We go to war.  That's where we go.  It's where humanity goes every time it's on the table (well, you either go to war, or you go to the death camps.  Those are the two choices).

Oct 13:

‘The Onion’ Stands With Israel Because It Seems Like You Get In Less Trouble For That

https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-because-it-seems-like-yo-1850922505

Also....dear lord, the times we live in.  When a satire is dead, yet satire is also some of the most pointed, thoughtful news coverage we can get.  Helluva world, man.

 

Oct 18:

Pay attention to what's happening in the West Bank, while the world is watching Gaza.  The Israeli government, either directly or acting in support of (or protecting) Israeli "settler" groups, has been pat of straight up targeted violence against Palestinian civilians.  I'm not talking about "collateral damage," which will happen in Gaza especially because of how Hamas operates.  I'm talking about Israelis flat-out harming and killing innocent Palestinians.  Israel's hands are and remain super unclean.

 

OCT 18:

Yes.  You should be dismissed.

See, Hamas has demonstrably unclean hands and a clear track record of issuing self-serving false statements.....BUT, the palestinians have gotten a raw deal, so we should believe whatever Hamas says.

Whereas Israel also has demonstrably unclean hands and a clear track record of issuing self-serving false statements.....so we don't believe anything Israel says, at least not without objective evidence sufficient to support the statement.

The second statement makes plenty of sense.  The first is fucking insane.  But it is practiced by multiple posters on this thread.  They point to "Well, Israel lies!" as justification for them BLINDLY ACCEPTING WHAT HAMAS SAID AS THE TRUTH. The very standard they espouse, the refuse to apply.  If you want to know why this matter will never, ever, ever be solved, that's a great example.

Oct 18:

I sure as hell didn't ever blindly accept the beheading babies story - I still haven't seen anything close to proof.

But you spend 10X the energy on disputing that story than on placing culpability on Hamas.  Your take, like that of most of the apologists, is "yes, crimes were committed.  Very bad.  Let's move on so I can get to my agenda: Fuck Israel with everything capable of fucking Israel."

Nope.  We don't get to just skip the fuck over Hamas's crimes, both their crimes in the attack on civilians and on their undeniable and documented war crimes of sheltering military assets in civilian structures like schools.  The level of moral culpability on Hamas, and yes, on the people who support them, is fucking substantial, and must be dealt with.

As must Israel's ongoing crimes in the West Bank. And Likud's plan to foment further discord to give Israel the opportunity to exercise force again and again.  And the list goes on.  

Maybe what I'm sick of is the fucking narrative of "yeah, I know, to be intellectually honest, I have to say that both sides bear responsibility, but having said that, I'm going to skip right over the horrific shit by the side I support, and focus exclusively on the horrific shit by the side I want to demonize."  I'll certainly note that plenty of the "I stand with Israel crowd" does this, and it's a shitty look.  Just like it's a shitty look on the palestinian defenders when they can't help but functionally exculpate Palestinian terrorism with what amounts to "but they're oppressed, so I understand, these things happen, let's move on."

I still see two sides in the conflict that are presently operating under the umbrella of their most bellicose elements. On Oct. 7th, Hamas's actions had the greatest unclean hands.  Since then, Israel's actions have had the greatest unclean hands.

I still see no way out.  I see two fires burning with incredible intensity.  There is no putting them out.  And yes, fighting about who is more justified in wanting to continue to exist, weighed against who has committed how many awful acts against the other, will never ever yield a positive solution.

Either the two sides fight to final extinction, or they accept a pragmatic solution that has an eye towards future peaceful existence instead of an eye backwards towards past wrong/grievance.  Those are the choices.  And the choice has been made.  Death and extinction it is.  Everyone loses.

[BrickHorn 18451]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I still see no way out.  I see two fires burning with incredible intensity.  There is no putting them out.

Warming up for Open Mic Poetry Night?

[Brisketexan 107041]

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

Warming up for Open Mic Poetry Night?

I'm more of a limerick guy, but damned if I can start with "there once was a man from Nantucket" and turn it into something on the lack of hope for peace in the Levant.

[Brian Fantana 6876]

41 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I know that you take the fact that I am not 100% on board with your "Free Palestine, they are the good guys!" take means that I am inherently "Western media swallowed" (nevermind that I cited multiple times to Al Jazeera coverage, which I have watched and read for years, as just one example)....I've been pretty clear that Israel's hands "are and remain super unclean."  I mean, I literally said that exact thing mere days after the attacks.  Here's just a few of my snipped replies by date -- please point out for me the theme of how I am materially weighted towards Israel?  I mean, other than the fact that in the present context...Hamas was the aggressor, and Israel was the attacked entity.  I mean, re: October 7....yeah....I tilt Israel's way in terms of that event, and there being a justification for response (not the one that followed, but a response nonetheless).

I still see two sides in the conflict that are presently operating under the umbrella of their most bellicose elements. On Oct. 7th, Hamas's actions had the greatest unclean hands.  Since then, Israel's actions have had the greatest unclean hands.

I still see no way out.  I see two fires burning with incredible intensity.  There is no putting them out.  And yes, fighting about who is more justified in wanting to continue to exist, weighed against who has committed how many awful acts against the other, will never ever yield a positive solution.

Either the two sides fight to final extinction, or they accept a pragmatic solution that has an eye towards future peaceful existence instead of an eye backwards towards past wrong/grievance.  Those are the choices.  And the choice has been made.  Death and extinction it is.  Everyone loses.

Not ignoring you I promise. May not have time to properly respond until tomorrow.

[Satchel 6983]

They’re cousins. I don’t understand that evolved people can’t get along.

[RomaVicta 30644]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

A clear and simple statement to the effect of "Israel has a right to defend itself from these horrific attacks and the continuing threat from Hamas as an armed threat.  Israel should exercise that right with necessary force, tempered with the restraint necessary to protect all civilians in Gaza.  Its response should be targeted and methodical, waged against Hamas operatives only, while minimizing the risk/harm to civilians.  That may take time and patience, but the requirement that civilians not be unduly harmed requires that patience.  We will support Israel in such effort.  We will not support Israel waging war against civilian populations"

I appreciate the thought and tone of your response. However, I think your sense that a great opportunity was missed because the six line "simple statement" was not uttered at the start is errant in the extreme.

First, every value stated is obvious to any modern nation. Russia is even aware of it, but they chose to go against the assumptions in their brutal attack of Ukraine that has similar aims as those possessed by Israel. Does a nation like Israel, populated by educated and clearly civilized people, really need to be reminded that they should "minimize risk and actual harm to civilians?" Of course, they have the right to defend themselves. Every nation does.

Second, the part about not supporting Israel should they cross the boundaries laid out in the warning, the second they crossed that boundary with the air campaign, voices, including mine, objected to the US attachment to the developing outrage. Those voices were raised because of the violation of the rules set down in the simple statement. Everyone knows those rules.

Lastly, that's all moot at this time. The US is on the wrong side of this wholesale destruction of another de facto country. Israel is guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and empire building. We're sending them the tools to finish off a people.

[Anastasis 23718]

20 hours ago, Captainant said:

Evangelical fundamentalism is a hell of a drug. Much of what's motivating the support for Israel is that its existence is a condition for Jesus to return

Certainly a factor. If only the influence was limited to evangelical fundamentalists. Their particular notions, that Jesus needs a well-lit landing strip in Jerusalem, that the modern nation-state of Israel is the biblical nation of Israel, and that war and conflict in the Middle East is God-ordained are toxic. But beyond that, you also see the bleed over into non-religious and the residuals in the formerly religious as well. Some of the core assumptions and aspects of their end times worldview lingers long after Sunday School is passed. End result is that the country of Israel is afforded a unique and special dispensation. Enough so that even when certain people see with their own eyes a US-funded ethnic cleansing exercise, it is hard for some of them to find a clear voice.   

Edited March 5 by Anastasis

[David Dennison 19570]

27 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Certainly a factor. If only the influence was limited to evangelical fundamentalists. Their particular notions, that Jesus needs a well-lit landing strip in Jerusalem, that the modern nation-state of Israel is the biblical nation of Israel, and that war and conflict in the Middle East is God-ordained are toxic. But beyond that, you also see the bleed over into non-religious and the residuals in the formerly religious as well. Some of the core assumptions and aspects of their end times worldview lingers long after Sunday School is passed. End result is that the country of Israel is afforded a unique and special dispensation. Enough so that even when certain people see with their own eyes a US-funded ethnic cleansing exercise, it is hard for some of them to find a clear voice.   

Also, the Holocaust.

[956 Worldwide 35602]

Important report from a UN team specially investigating sexual violence claims.

https://news.un.org/en/sites/news.un.org.en/files/atoms/files/Mission_report_of_SRSG_SVC_to_Israel-oWB_29Jan_14_feb_2024.pdf

Toplines: Ressonable evidence of mass rapes and gang rapes across three sites although it is impossible to prove what happened to many of the women who were bound, undressed, and then killed before being burned. Hostages were, and most likely continue to be, subject to rape and torture. Many corpses were booby trapped making investigation impossible. The team believes that undressed and bound corpses is strong circumstantial evidence of sexual violence. 
 

On the Israel side, there is reason to believe prisoners are being subject to invasive searches, including strip searches, beatings, unwanted touches during searches, having their hijabs removed, and threats of sexual assault in the West Bank. The team received no allegations of rape by IDF or Israeli authorities during their investigation although the team intimates that Palestinians do not fully report for cultural reasons. 

['stache 22148]

23 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I know that you take the fact that I am not 100% on board with your "Free Palestine, they are the good guys!" take means that I am inherently "Western media swallowed" (nevermind that I cited multiple times to Al Jazeera coverage, which I have watched and read for years, as just one example)....I've been pretty clear that Israel's hands "are and remain super unclean."  I mean, I literally said that exact thing mere days after the attacks.  Here's just a few of my snipped replies by date -- please point out for me the theme of how I am materially weighted towards Israel?  I mean, other than the fact that in the present context...Hamas was the aggressor, and Israel was the attacked entity.  I mean, re: October 7....yeah....I tilt Israel's way in terms of that event, and there being a justification for response (not the one that followed, but a response nonetheless).

I still see two sides in the conflict that are presently operating under the umbrella of their most bellicose elements. On Oct. 7th, Hamas's actions had the greatest unclean hands.  Since then, Israel's actions have had the greatest unclean hands.

I still see no way out.  I see two fires burning with incredible intensity.  There is no putting them out.  And yes, fighting about who is more justified in wanting to continue to exist, weighed against who has committed how many awful acts against the other, will never ever yield a positive solution.

Either the two sides fight to final extinction, or they accept a pragmatic solution that has an eye towards future peaceful existence instead of an eye backwards towards past wrong/grievance.  Those are the choices.  And the choice has been made.  Death and extinction it is.  Everyone loses.

There are three parties directly involved: (1) Israel, a country with a government recognized by nearly every UN country across the planet, and with the support of pretty much every western power; (2) Hamas, a terrorist organization, whose claim to governmental legitimacy is not recognized by nearly every UN country and every western power; (3) Civilian residents of Gaza who are being exterminated as part of retaliation against Hamas, which is defined as the war crime of collective punishment.

Everyone here has said that Oct. 7 was a heinous attack and Hamas should be punished and destroyed to the extent possible. Those pushing back are saying that the third parties, the civilians of Gaza, who have zero power to do anything other than try to dodge bombs and not starve to death, don't deserve what is happening to them, and that the west should do more to address their plight. Many here and everywhere else are saying it is justified because Hamas is using them as human shields, but doesn't that just underscore that they are not a legitimate government and are just as much the enemy of Gaza civilians?

You keep talking about both sides wanting to "exterminate" the other. My first response to this is that, while they are wrong to think this way, the civilians of Gaza are likely to respond to a poll that Israel should leave the region because their lived experience is that Israel has oppressed them, but at the end of the day, they have zero power, so there is no real possibility of Israel being exterminated by Palestinians. Conversely, Gaza is in peril of being exterminated, they are already half way there having destroyed so much civilian infrastructure.

Because of the disparity in power, Israel has to be the ones to agree to a two-state or whatever other solution that might be proposed with the help of the UN. Hamas doesn't need to agree, because, as I keep saying like a broken record, they are terrorists, not a government. You pushed back on that earlier, but the UN doesn't recognize Hamas as a government, so they are not a government for this purpose. 

Finally, I don't think it's unreasonable for Israel to just accept that terrorism is a thing, and the focus should be on stopping it to the extent possible through intelligence, etc. Here in the US we face terrorism every other week, most prominently mass shootings, and yet we just seem to accept that as part of life in the US. We also face the threat of middle east and other terrorists and it's not reasonable to think we can stop it entirely (hence why most today feel the "war on terror" was a dumb concept). 

There's so much more in my head, but I will never agree with you that Palestinians pose any real threat of "exterminating" Israel, but the reverse is true, and 2 million civilians in Gaza don't deserve what is happening to them, which is about as close to genocide as the modern world has seen in some time.

Edited March 5 by 'stache

[Brisketexan 107041]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

There are three parties directly involved: (1) Israel, a country with a government recognized by nearly every UN country across the planet, and with the support of pretty much every western power; (2) Hamas, a terrorist organization, whose claim to governmental legitimacy is not recognized by nearly every UN country and every western power; (3) Civilian residents of Gaza who are being exterminated as part of retaliation against Hamas, which is defined as the war crime of collective punishment.

Everyone here has said that Oct. 7 was a heinous attack and Hamas should be punished and destroyed to the extent possible. Those pushing back are saying that the third parties, the civilians of Gaza, who have zero power to do anything other than try to dodge bombs and not starve to death, don't deserve what is happening to them, and that the west should do more to address their plight. Many here and everywhere else are saying it is justified because Hamas is using them as human shields, but doesn't that just underscore that they are not a legitimate government and are just as much the enemy of Gaza civilians?

You keep talking about both sides wanting to "exterminate" the other. My first response to this is that, while they are wrong to think this way, the civilians of Gaza are likely to respond to a poll that Israel should leave the region because their lived experience is that Israel has oppressed them, but at the end of the day, they have zero power, so there is no real possibility of Israel being exterminated by Palestinians. Conversely, Gaza is in peril of being exterminated, they are already half way there having destroyed so much civilian infrastructure.

Because of the disparity in power, Israel has to be the ones to agree to a two-state or whatever other solution that might be proposed with the help of the UN. Hamas doesn't need to agree, because, as I keep saying like a broken record, they are terrorists, not a government. You pushed back on that earlier, but the UN doesn't recognize Hamas as a government, so they are not a government for this purpose. 

Finally, I don't think it's unreasonable for Israel to just accept that terrorism is a thing, and the focus should be on stopping it to the extent possible through intelligence, etc. Here in the US we face terrorism every other week, most prominently mass shootings, and yet we just seem to accept that as part of life in the US. We also face the threat of middle east and other terrorists and it's not reasonable to think we can stop it entirely (hence why most today feel the "war on terror" was a dumb concept). 

There's so much more in my head, but I will never agree with you that Palestinians pose any real threat of "exterminating" Israel, but the reverse is true, and 2 million civilians in Gaza don't deserve what is happening to them, which is about as close to genocide as the modern world has seen in some time.

Appreciate the post, and agree with most/much of it, including the fact that it's almost entirely in Israel's hands as to agreeing to a two-state or other solution, due to the power imbalance (and certainly agreeing that the civilian population of Gaza does not deserve the hell being visited upon them, and that the west should do more to address their plight).  But as to any "solution," there is a fork in the road that comes after such action that matters.  What comes after? -- if it is a full Palestinian state, then it has a much higher likelihood of being able to wage war against Israel (in such scenario, likely with partner states -- which we've seen before).  If it is less than a full state, then it's only a partial solution to the plight of the Palestinian people, and will necessarily include a level of dissatisfaction that will lead to violence. 

The most just outcome would be 1) a Palestinian state, with sovereignty and self-determination, 2) that is not at war with Israel.  My pragmatic eye sees zero chance for that.  First, because the current Israeli regime (and perhaps all possible Israeli regimes) will never allow it.  And second, because even if allowed, it's near-certain that the new state will be at war with Israel in short order.

The challenge/problem that comes with accepting an outcome that allows for political violence with, yes, genocidal intent, is that today's justification of "the power imbalance is so great that side X is no real threat to execute on that plan" is that power balances can and do change.  Sometimes, surprisingly quickly. 

TLDR; I think there are multiple "right things to do" in the levant.  I just have zero faith in any player doing a single one of them.  And thus, here we are and here we shall remain.

[RomaVicta 30644]

30 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Important report from a UN team specially investigating sexual violence claims.

https://news.un.org/en/sites/news.un.org.en/files/atoms/files/Mission_report_of_SRSG_SVC_to_Israel-oWB_29Jan_14_feb_2024.pdf

Toplines: Ressonable evidence of mass rapes and gang rapes across three sites although it is impossible to prove what happened to many of the women who were bound, undressed, and then killed before being burned. Hostages were, and most likely continue to be, subject to rape and torture. Many corpses were booby trapped making investigation impossible. The team believes that undressed and bound corpses is strong circumstantial evidence of sexual violence. 
 

On the Israel side, there is reason to believe prisoners are being subject to invasive searches, including strip searches, beatings, unwanted touches during searches, having their hijabs removed, and threats of sexual assault in the West Bank. The team received no allegations of rape by IDF or Israeli authorities during their investigation although the team intimates that Palestinians do not fully report for cultural reasons. 

There was an earlier account of what at least one female Israeli soldier was put through in October. Horrific. Maybe even moreso than what other women suffered. Torture isn't an adequate word for such psychopathic outrages.

The Israelis have been cruel captors, but there is no way to both sides this one. Not close.

I would like some insight into how Hamas creates such an army. We all can name generalities, but if anyone has a resource that really looks into the brainwashing that must be going on. This is beyond anger. This is beyond what is needed for terrorism. These men were not all born psychopaths.

[RomaVicta 30644]

17 minutes ago, 'stache said:

There are three parties directly involved: (1) Israel, a country with a government recognized by nearly every UN country across the planet, and with the support of pretty much every western power; (2) Hamas, a terrorist organization, whose claim to governmental legitimacy is not recognized by nearly every UN country and every western power; (3) Civilian residents of Gaza who are being exterminated as part of retaliation against Hamas, which is defined as the war crime of collective punishment.

Everyone here has said that Oct. 7 was a heinous attack and Hamas should be punished and destroyed to the extent possible. Those pushing back are saying that the third parties, the civilians of Gaza, who have zero power to do anything other than try to dodge bombs and not starve to death, don't deserve what is happening to them, and that the west should do more to address their plight. Many here and everywhere else are saying it is justified because Hamas is using them as human shields, but doesn't that just underscore that they are not a legitimate government and are just as much the enemy of Gaza civilians?

You keep talking about both sides wanting to "exterminate" the other. My first response to this is that, while they are wrong to think this way, the civilians of Gaza are likely to respond to a poll that Israel should leave the region because their lived experience is that Israel has oppressed them, but at the end of the day, they have zero power, so there is no real possibility of Israel being exterminated by Palestinians. Conversely, Gaza is in peril of being exterminated, they are already half way there having destroyed so much civilian infrastructure.

Because of the disparity in power, Israel has to be the ones to agree to a two-state or whatever other solution that might be proposed with the help of the UN. Hamas doesn't need to agree, because, as I keep saying like a broken record, they are terrorists, not a government. You pushed back on that earlier, but the UN doesn't recognize Hamas as a government, so they are not a government for this purpose. 

Finally, I don't think it's unreasonable for Israel to just accept that terrorism is a thing, and the focus should be on stopping it to the extent possible through intelligence, etc. Here in the US we face terrorism every other week, most prominently mass shootings, and yet we just seem to accept that as part of life in the US. We also face the threat of middle east and other terrorists and it's not reasonable to think we can stop it entirely (hence why most today feel the "war on terror" was a dumb concept). 

There's so much more in my head, but I will never agree with you that Palestinians pose any real threat of "exterminating" Israel, but the reverse is true, and 2 million civilians in Gaza don't deserve what is happening to them, which is about as close to genocide as the modern world has seen in some time.

So very well put, 'Stache. You cover my opinions and add others. 

[956 Worldwide 35602]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

 

Finally, I don't think it's unreasonable for Israel to just accept that terrorism is a thing, and the focus should be on stopping it to the extent possible through intelligence, etc. Here in the US we face terrorism every other week, most prominently mass shootings, and yet we just seem to accept that as part of life in the US. We also face the threat of middle east and other terrorists and it's not reasonable to think we can stop it entirely (hence why most today feel the "war on terror" was a dumb concept). 

 

There’s a lot in that post to dive into but I just don’t see how the extract squares with reality. 
 

1,200 Israeli men, women, and children were murdered on October 7, in a spectacular and gruesome fashion blasted all over social media. Per capita, this would be like a foreign paramilitary group going house to house in Huntsville, killing and raping until every person was dead while the rest of America watched on Insta reels. 

The “unreasonable” take here is to suggest that any government in the world, especially democracies, would respond with “these things happen, our bad for not catching it, we will stop them next time.” That just simply isn’t how this works and the people who planned that attack knew about it and wanted it.

This is the type of thing that you can say only as an American where for most purposes we won the war on terror in the sense that there have been no mass (100 plus victims) foreign terror  attacks on American soil for 23 years.  There is no government in the world that would take the approach you’re advocating and no population that would accept it as a response. If 45,000 Americans died tomorrow because of a Zetas attack, there’d be divisions in Mexico. If 20,000 Italians were killed by Tunisian pirates on TikTok, a carrier strike group would be shaping operations for an amphibious NATO assault.  We can get into tactics and proportionality but an attack of this scale against a modern state always ends in a military response. 

If you’d like a baseline and status quo, you can point at the Israeli posture toward dribs and drabs of rocket and small suicide attacks pre-10/7 and say that they had basically accepted this status quo. 10/7 upset the status quo in a way no government of any stripe could ignore. 

[RomaVicta 30644]

22 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The “unreasonable” take here is to suggest that any government in the world, especially democracies, would respond with “these things happen, our bad for not catching it, we will stop them next time.” That just simply isn’t how this works and the people who planned that attack knew about it and wanted it.

Nothing in the post suggested that pre-emptive actions were off limits. No one is suggesting kid gloves. After 911, I've advocated a war on the terrorists who mean us harm mainly using intelligence and special forces. I capped it off with saying I'd rather err on the side of thoroughness.

Bombing the Gaza strip into uninhabitable rubble while pressuring a neighboring country to take in the refugees is displacement on a massive scale. The ensuing starvation, disease, lack of shelter, lack of feminine napkins (no joke), and even water has little to do with the October attacks at this point. I don't care to get into an argument about the definition of genocide because it's a trivial distinction to me. Mass slaughter of noncombatant civilians meets a high enough standard.

Calling this a war is a lie.

[statsman 5701]

Yes, Hamas are terrorists, and not a real government. That’s true. (Not that this keeps Iran, the UN and Qatar from treating them like a legit government). 
 
What is also true is that they used their power in Gaza to usurp UNRWA operations. 
 
What is also true is that Iran funds Hamas and helped operationally plan and schedule October 7. 
 
I’d like to see:

Israel adopt a scalpel approach, and to eradicate Hamas

Qatar be pressured into handing over Hamas leadership

The UN be scourged of its antisemitic branches

Iran be treated by the U.S. as the rogue nation it is

The Palestinian people to take steps towards forming a liberal democracy

Oh, and for the hostages to be freed 

Edited March 5 by statsman

[Brian Fantana 6876]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Nothing in the post suggested that pre-emptive actions were off limits. No one is suggesting kid gloves. After 911, I've advocated a war on the terrorists who mean us harm mainly using intelligence and special forces. I capped it off with saying I'd rather err on the side of thoroughness.

Bombing the Gaza strip into uninhabitable rubble while pressuring a neighboring country to take in the refugees is displacement on a massive scale. The ensuing starvation, disease, lack of shelter, lack of feminine napkins (no joke), and even water has little to do with the October attacks at this point. I don't care to get into an argument about the definition of genocide because it's a trivial distinction to me. Mass slaughter of noncombatant civilians meets a high enough standard.

Calling this a war is a lie.

I sincerely do not understand why some feel the need to keep hammering the "Israel had to respond" line over and over despite the fact that literally no one is arguing against that. Like no fucking shit they had to respond. Thanks for the deep and thoughtful insight. I guess if your perspective boils down to that the Israeli lives taken are what ultimately matter, and any Palestinian life taken is just an "unfortunate circumstance", this is what you get.

Western media certainly doesn't help. Israelis are killed. Palestinians just magically drop dead.

[956 Worldwide 35602]

3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Nothing in the post suggested that pre-emptive actions were off limits. No one is suggesting kid gloves. After 911, I've advocated a war on the terrorists who mean us harm mainly using intelligence and special forces. I capped it off with saying I'd rather err on the side of thoroughness.

Bombing the Gaza strip into uninhabitable rubble while pressuring a neighboring country to take in the refugees is displacement on a massive scale. The ensuing starvation, disease, lack of shelter, lack of feminine napkins (no joke), and even water has little to do with the October attacks at this point. I don't care to get into an argument about the definition of genocide because it's a trivial distinction to me. Mass slaughter of noncombatant civilians meets a high enough standard.

Calling this a war is a lie.

My entire point is simply that an SF/Intelligence response was never an option, never was going to happen. It was always going to be a large conventional military response. Any modern state with a functioning military was going to respond to an attack at that scale with a big conventional response. I just don’t think we are appreciating the scale of what happened. 

[David Dennison 19570]

3 hours ago, statsman said:

Yes, Hamas are terrorists, and not a real government. That’s true. (Not that this keeps Iran, the UN and Qatar from treating them like a legit government). 
 
What is also true is that they used their power in Gaza to usurp UNRWA operations. 
 
What is also true is that Iran funds Hamas and helped operationally plan and schedule October 7. 
 
I’d like to see:

Israel adopt a scalpel approach, and to eradicate Hamas

Qatar be pressured into handing over Hamas leadership

The UN be scourged of its antisemitic branches

Iran be treated by the U.S. as the rogue nation it is

The Palestinian people to take steps towards forming a liberal democracy

Oh, and for the hostages to be freed 

Will Israel ever allow this to happen?

[Brian Fantana 6876]

Netanyahu will die first.

[Brisketexan 107041]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Will Israel ever allow this to happen?

Probably not....

11 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Netanyahu will die first.

...and even then....probably not.  But Bibi's death would be a helpful event.  From your lips to god's ears.

 

There might have been some hope for getting Israel to agree with that path (something that looks like a two-state solution with Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination).  That hope is lost.  The mood in Israel, even among the non-hardliners, is shit.  October 7th succeeded in one of its goals: ensuring that there is never, ever a peaceful resolution to the dispute.

It also succeeded in making sure the climate also guarantees that the Palestinians don't ever want a peaceful co-existence with Israel.  They will want Israeli blood, forever and ever.  In many respects, Israel has only itself to blame for that (due to it's brutal and heavy-handed response), but then that's actually what the current Israeli regime wants (an environment in which it can truthfully say "see?  There is no hope for peace, so war is the only way!).  As I've said repeatedly, the bloodthirsty hardliners on both sides have completely gotten their way, and all other voices are functionally irrelevant.

Edited March 5 by Brisketexan

[statsman 5701]

36 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Will Israel ever allow this to happen?

I think Hamas, Fatah and Iran are bigger obstacles than Israel to that happening. 

[Brian Fantana 6876]

36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Probably not....

...and even then....probably not.  But Bibi's death would be a helpful event.  From your lips to god's ears.

Yeah I mean I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole there, but I have no doubt that he's had that exact thought. Ultimately, I suspect he takes the coward's way out before he ultimately ends up in prison.

[RomaVicta 30644]

36 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

My entire point is simply that an SF/Intelligence response was never an option, never was going to happen. It was always going to be a large conventional military response. Any modern state with a functioning military was going to respond to an attack at that scale with a big conventional response. I just don’t think we are appreciating the scale of what happened. 

I couldn't disagree more. The US, bloody as we can be, didn't cut a swath through every town in Afghanistan after 9/11. What you say is an inevitability is clearly not. Even it the slaughter in Gaza was an inevitability because of Israel's disposition, the attack would not be justified.

I'll say it a last time; the attack in October is no longer what is leading Israeli policy. They want to erase the Palestinians from Gaza. And we're complicit.

[956 Worldwide 35602]

9 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I couldn't disagree more. The US, bloody as we can be, didn't cut a swath through every town in Afghanistan after 9/11. What you say is an inevitability is clearly not. Even it the slaughter in Gaza was an inevitability because of Israel's disposition, the attack would not be justified.

I'll say it a last time; the attack in October is no longer what is leading Israeli policy. They want to erase the Palestinians from Gaza. And we're complicit.

It’s not the same terrain or enemy and not the same war.  The Taliban bolted to the mountains and Pakistan.  Hamas didn’t, and cannot.  
 

We fucking leveled Raqqa and Mosul and displaced a million people and that was fighting ISIS.

[InkaUtexas 26970]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It’s not the same terrain or enemy and not the same war.  The Taliban bolted to the mountains and Pakistan.  Hamas didn’t, and cannot.  
 

We fucking leveled Raqqa and Mosul and displaced a million people and that was fighting ISIS.

Tell me you never worked in Helmand. I lost quite a few teams in country.

[Brian Fantana 6876]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

We fucking leveled Raqqa and Mosul and displaced a million people and that was fighting ISIS.

Yeah that's what we went there to do.

[Brian Fantana 6876]

(Sorry that was supposed to be a joke but it just didn't form in my brain I guess)

[RomaVicta 30644]

10 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It’s not the same terrain or enemy and not the same war.  The Taliban bolted to the mountains and Pakistan.  Hamas didn’t, and cannot.  
 

We fucking leveled Raqqa and Mosul and displaced a million people and that was fighting ISIS.

You're smart, but this position of yours is getting desperate. We're bloody, violent, and stupid in our application of force. We're far more restrained than Israel. Destroying Kabul with airstrikes followed by an armored invasion would be comparable.

The ISIS conflict was horrible. The Iraq invasion needlessly killed tens of thousands of civilians not counting the post battle trauma. We were wrong to invade and the results have been disastrous. Baghdad is not a pile of rubble. Iraquis stilll live in Iraq. We've no doubt killed way too many people but, other than the indigenous population of North America, we haven't made a policy of erasing a people.

Israel is conducting a campaign akin to what the Serbs were trying to do in Kosovo.  Or akin to our shameful history with the native civilization of North America. The Nazis in Warsaw also make for a good example of a trained modern army crushing determined but feeble resistance and erasing the inhabitants.

I don't see those as precedents justifying Israel's slaughter and starve campaign.  

I don't think you finding details that differ means much. You need to argue how Israel is justified. You can't rely on calling it inevitable. You can't rely on hypotheticals that history does not support.

I'll repeat that I respect you and your way of arguing. I've learned a lot from you.

Edited March 6 by RomaVicta
Clarified which indigenous peope I'm referring to. Second edit to edit the original message in this box.

[Anastasis 23718]

10 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

The Iraq invasion needlessly killed tens of thousands of civilians not counting the post battle trauma. We were wrong to invade and the results have been disastrous.

You are responding to a poster that if teleported back in time would have been happily posting links of articles and tweets about the Nigerian yellow cake scam in 2001 to justify the run up to the invasion. 

[Anastasis 23718]

Sorry, it would have been late 2002 and early 2003. 

[Brian Fantana 6876]

34 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You are responding to a poster that if teleported back in time would have been happily posting links of articles and tweets about the Nigerian yellow cake scam in 2001 to justify the run up to the invasion. 

There's probably a non-zero percentage of posters on this site that still believe that lie.

[Anastasis 23718]

37 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

There's probably a non-zero percentage of posters on this site that still believe that lie.

There is a nonzero number of Americans that refuse to learn from their own lived experience. They just want to fall for the same tried propaganda artistry over and over again. 

[Smax 3800]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

There is a nonzero number of Americans that refuse to learn from their own lived experience. They just want to fall for the same tried propaganda artistry over and over again. 

 

Yes we call them republicans

[Anastasis 23718]

4 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

Yes we call them republicans

And some former republicans that just can’t shake their bad habits despite their political realignment. 

[YGIFS 19458]

Political realignment is a generous term.  They didn't shuffle from one conference to another of equal/better prominence.  They went from the equivalent of the College Football Playoff champions of the FBS to a helmet-less pickup league of GED holders.  

[Da Fino 2821]

Fuck it. Nvm

Edited March 7 by Da Fino

[immamac 44421]

14 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

You're smart, but this position of yours is getting desperate. We're bloody, violent, and stupid in our application of force. We're far more restrained than Israel. Destroying Kabul with airstrikes followed by an armored invasion would be comparable.

The ISIS conflict was horrible. The Iraq invasion needlessly killed tens of thousands of civilians not counting the post battle trauma. We were wrong to invade and the results have been disastrous. Baghdad is not a pile of rubble. Iraquis stilll live in Iraq. We've no doubt killed way too many people but, other than the indigenous population of North America, we haven't made a policy of erasing a people.

Israel is conducting a campaign akin to what the Serbs were trying to do in Kosovo.  Or akin to our shameful history with the native civilization of North America. The Nazis in Warsaw also make for a good example of a trained modern army crushing determined but feeble resistance and erasing the inhabitants.

I don't see those as precedents justifying Israel's slaughter and starve campaign.  

I don't think you finding details that differ means much. You need to argue how Israel is justified. You can't rely on calling it inevitable. You can't rely on hypotheticals that history does not support.

I'll repeat that I respect you and your way of arguing. I've learned a lot from you.

I think that everyone is so far removed from all of this they can’t even begin to comprehend how great a trump presidency is compared to living in any part of Israel or even more detached anywhere in Palestine is. 

[Smax 3800]

So how many civilian hostages does hamas have?

Not hearing a lot about them ...

[956 Worldwide 35602]

21 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

You're smart, but this position of yours is getting desperate. We're bloody, violent, and stupid in our application of force. We're far more restrained than Israel. Destroying Kabul with airstrikes followed by an armored invasion would be comparable.

The ISIS conflict was horrible. The Iraq invasion needlessly killed tens of thousands of civilians not counting the post battle trauma. We were wrong to invade and the results have been disastrous. Baghdad is not a pile of rubble. Iraquis stilll live in Iraq. We've no doubt killed way too many people but, other than the indigenous population of North America, we haven't made a policy of erasing a people.

Israel is conducting a campaign akin to what the Serbs were trying to do in Kosovo.  Or akin to our shameful history with the native civilization of North America. The Nazis in Warsaw also make for a good example of a trained modern army crushing determined but feeble resistance and erasing the inhabitants.

I don't see those as precedents justifying Israel's slaughter and starve campaign.  

I don't think you finding details that differ means much. You need to argue how Israel is justified. You can't rely on calling it inevitable. You can't rely on hypotheticals that history does not support.

I'll repeat that I respect you and your way of arguing. I've learned a lot from you.

I have not argued that this campaign was inevitable. I have said that a conventional military response was inevitable. It was. 

[956 Worldwide 35602]

11 hours ago, Anastasis said:

You are responding to a poster that if teleported back in time would have been happily posting links of articles and tweets about the Nigerian yellow cake scam in 2001 to justify the run up to the invasion. 

And you are a poster who spews lies and propaganda today. A main difference being that you are doing it as a service to your country’s enemies. Fuck off Putin shill. Don’t thing it’s not obvious that you shifted to caring about this just because you were getting no traction on Ukraine .

Edited March 7 by 956 Worldwide

[bolverk 30376]

7 hours ago, Smax said:

So how many civilian hostages does hamas have?

Not hearing a lot about them ...

It's estimated that Hamas is holding about 134 hostages, while Israel is holding thousands of Palestinians from within Israel alongside those they've taken Gaza. We can suspect some Palestinians may have been combatants or are Hamas adjacent, but we know that they're also holding many, many innocents, including women and juveniles.

[RomaVicta 30644]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I have not argued that this campaign was inevitable. I have said that a conventional military response was inevitable. It was. 

What I quoted from one of your posts:

Quote

My entire point is simply that an SF/Intelligence response was never an option, never was going to happen. It was always going to be a large conventional military response. Any modern state with a functioning military was going to respond to an attack at that scale with a big conventional response. I just don’t think we are appreciating the scale of what happened. 

Perhaps you can explain where I go wrong in my interpretation of "large conventional military response" while referring to this campaign.

[RomaVicta 30644]

8 hours ago, Smax said:

So how many civilian hostages does hamas have?

Not hearing a lot about them ...

 

This was reported in an obscure publication called the New York Times.

 

...

 

Below, is a dated discussion of it between myself and @956 Worldwide.

 

Edited March 7 by RomaVicta