Israel

[SydneyCarton 49532]

44 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I don't think I have ever attacked you or called you a piece of shit. If I ever did, I apologize.

I see your point, and in ordinary conversation I might even agree. But on this board, we should strive to treat one another charitably and without assuming ill intentions. (And sure for some posters maybe their reputations have earned them a reduced or non-existent benefit of the doubt). But to me, that means I hold my fire until someone actually has justified terror.

Racism is a systemic, pervasive force and often operates within us on subconscious level. Most of us, including good people who go out of their way not to be racist for reasons other than keeping up appearances, have been cogs in this system and have exerted forces on the world that are correctly categorized as racist. Our laws are racist. Our justice system is racist. Our institutions are racist. Our traditions are racist.

So when someone says "I'm not racist, but . . . " (1) that's untrue, whether they know it or not, and (2) what follows may very well be bigoted. The point you likely were making is that you can't simply use magic words to transform a racist expression into a non-racist expression and, by that same reasoning, you can't use magic words to transform terror justification into something else.

The problem I have with that argument is that racism is a systemic, pervasive force while terrorism is broad category of intimidation tactics that inflict terror and death. There are similarities in that both are bad, but that's about where the similarities end. All of us have been and to varying extents are racist; very few (and hopefully nobody on this board) has been or ever will be a terrorist. Someone who wants to prevent terrorism, as most of us do, will also want to understand where terrorism comes from. Who do those tactics appeal to, and why? What brings someone to that point? What interventions could have been made and how? That's very different from justifying the tactics.

We also have the "benefit" of 20+ years of a failed "war on terror." There have been lessons learned. We know what's effective. We know what isn't effective. We also know that facile framing of terrorism as the product of some kind of unpredictable malevolent force, rather than a statistically likely stochastic consequence under certain conditions with which history has made us familiar, is misleading and counterproductive to anyone with a legitimate interest in reducing and eliminating terrorism.

The pre-cogs of Minority Report lore are and should remain fictitious.  It's wrong to punish people for something they may not actually do later. I also believe it's wrong to criticize someone for "justifying" terror when they may not actually do that later. That's the benefit of the doubt I extend to most posters.

For the record, it wasn't you who basically called me a piece of shit (bloodthirsy and ignorant were the two). That was today, by other posters. 

Great post, and you have a lot of good points, most of which I agree with. You're right, racism is systemic, it's everywhere in our system, and comparing it isn't fair. But at the same time, the "I'm not defending Hamas, but" comment as it's form has been utilized in my posts and interactions today has been...a kneejerk excuse. I've got out of my way many times to discuss the here and now, what Israel's options are today, and what they should do, and I'm being met with some version of "You ignorant fuck, you don't understand the crimes Israel has committed for decades that have gone unrecognized." 

And I've never denied Israel has fucked up, that Israel has blame. But I keep trying to point out "RIGHT NOW" what should Isreal do, and no one has any answer other than to fucking dance around the subject and say "I'm not defending Hamas, but..." or telling me that I am ignorant and just don't understand. If you were on the other end of that, nevermind I've been vocally critical of Israel and defensive of Palestinians that aren't Hamas on several threads and posts the last few days, I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it.  Nevermind damn near everyone has said "Isreal should really do it's best to not hurt civilians." But the only reasonable and possible manner to no hurt innocent civilians is to seal their borders, stop the bombing, and do nothing. Do no retaliation. That's the ONLY way massive amount of civilians don't die. I think I heard that 40% of the Palestinians in Gaza are 15-16 and under. This is horrifying. 

So again, Hamas is forcing civilians to stay in North Gaza, and not evacuate. They're saying its psychological warfare and no bombs are coming. Who's blood is that hands on? Because when I suggest it's Hammas's, I get lectured or called ignorant, or accused of being a brainwashed bloodthirsty savage. 

 

42 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Read the thread. This exact conversation has already been had. It doesn’t matter whose hands the blood is on. That’s the point. Whether Hamas or Israel is at fault doesn’t fucking matter. It still means a bunch of people just going about their lives are going to be killed.

First, thanks for re-iterating a point I and most other people have agreed with the entire thread. Maybe you should fucking read the thread?

Fuck off, you coward. I've read every post on this thread, the other thread, and been active on all of them. And you're right, some version of this conversation has been had, usually with you refusing to answer very straightforward questions directly because you know the light in which they'll paint you. You say "it doesn't matter whose hands the blood is on because civilians are going to die" on the same fucking day you basically accused a poster and Israel of being thrilled they can justify slaughting Palestinians because Hamas will use them as human shields. So...it sounds like it actually does fucking matter to you whose hands you think the blood is on...nevermind the fact damn near everyone has agreed they don't want to civilians to die, that both sides of each government have escalated this, but it doesn't stop you from jumping in and lecturing and condescending other posters the second they say something about Israel you don't agree with, namely that they're going to retaliate because they have no choice, and it's going to suck for everyone. It's what Hamas wants.

Edited October 13, 2023 by SydneyCarton

[SydneyCarton 49532]

13 minutes ago, F250 said:

American and NATO forces faced similar situations in Iraq and Afghanistan while also operating under rules of engagement. This is part of the responsibility that Western liberal democracies have and what differentiates them from countries like Russia. If Israel wants to be viewed like the West as a liberal democracy then they should be held to the same standards.

 

When this is over, they won't be viewed that way. Pretty sure they're not even going to try. 

22 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yeah I mean of course there's a way. It's like I said earlier in the thread, it's just not easy or quick.

And like everything difficult, it starts with a first step. It absolutely has to begin with Palestinians being treated like human beings and as equals, and the immediate cessation of all of the ethnic cleansing that is still taking place. Unless that baseline is first met, there's no moving forward, and the onus for that first step has always been on Israel.

You expect this happen before they respond to this terrorist attack? Or after? It's a serious question, because I've been blasted by you and others for characterizing your posts as suggesting Israel shouldn't respond to the attack on their soil. "No one is saying that!" But no one seems to actually have the balls to say "I think Israel shouldn't retaliate." No one also seems to have the balls to say "I think Israel is more to blame for the state of things than Palestine." I wish posters would have the fucking balls to be clear on their views.  I think both sides suck, espescially the last 20 years of Israel, but every major conflict wasn't initiated by Israel. 

Instead its a lot of shit like 'stache's post above, where he says for 75 years Israel has been committing atrocities that don't get recognized so when Palestine fights back, Israel looks justified. Fucking just say who you think is most at fault. Have the courage of your convictions. 

Now, as to the last part of your post, the onus of that first step being on Israel. Help me understand that. I'm not jewish. I'm not arab. I only know what I've seen and read over the course of my life. Why is that onus on Israel? Or more accurately, why has it ALWAYS been on Israel? Because every war seems to have been initiated by Palestine. Does 'stache have it right? Israel has always been working in the shadows? Straighten us out. It's one thing to say how bad things have gotten under Bibi and the last 20 years, but that isn't "always." 

[bolverk 30366]

West Bank is spinning with shitheads on both sides:

• Palestinians (some carrying Hamas flags) protest, clash with security (46 dead, 700 injured) since Saturday. Looks like a shoot-out also happened.
• Settlers shooting at Palestinians leaving a mosque after service. Elsewhere 4 Palestinians killed by settlers. Another instance where IDF and settlers shot and killed a father and son at at a funeral.

Click the embedded link in the story on data you've likely never seen before. I'm going to take a break. This is all too depressing.

Quote

 

Away from Gaza, violence also flares in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

While world attention focuses on the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, a battle has been slowly brewing in the other Palestinian territory, the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

At least 46 Palestinians have been killed, and another 700 people injured, in sporadic clashes with Israeli forces and settlers that have broken out in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel Saturday morning.

Ten of the people were killed on Friday during confrontations with Israeli forces that took place at several locations in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry.

The violence on Friday began after thousands of Palestinians set off on marches in solidarity with Gaza, some waving Hamas flags, after weekly prayers. Hamas, which controls Gaza, had called for a “day of rage,” urging Palestinians to confront Israeli forces and settlers in protest of Israel’s retaliatory strikes on the blockaded enclave.

But tensions are not new in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which are experiencing the deadliest year in nearly two decades. At least 246 Palestinians have been killed, many in gun battles with Israeli forces carrying out raids into Palestinian towns. The number of violent incidents attributed to Israeli settlers this year has also reached the highest level since at least 2006, the first year since the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs began tracking the incidents.

The conflict in Gaza has exacerbated tensions in the West Bank, where some Palestinians support Hamas. Many also view the Palestinian Authority — the semiautonomous body that governs the West Bank and was forced out of Gaza by Hamas in 2007 — as a subcontractor for Israel, helping maintain the occupation.

The atrocities by Hamas assailants in southern Israel on Saturday have angered hard-line Israeli settlers. Messages have been circulating in WhatsApp groups and on social media calling on settlers to arm themselves and confront Palestinians.

“We can’t rely on the army alone to protect us,” read one message that was sent on Friday to a WhatsApp group with over 8,000 followers.

On Friday, settlers shot at Palestinian worshipers leaving a mosque in Yatta, a West Bank city near Hebron, and injured one, according to a witness and videos posted on social media. One resident of Yatta, Basel Adra, 27, said that Palestinians have endured growing harassment in recent days by settlers, who now appear to be moving through the area with weapons.

In Qusra, a village near Hebron, armed settlers killed four Palestinians on Wednesday, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. The next day settlers and Israeli soldiers shot at the funeral procession, killing a father and his son, the ministry said.

In response to the violence in Qusra, the Israel Defense Forces said that a number of Palestinian casualties were reported following clashes between settlers and Palestinians. It did not say how many.

 

 

[Anastasis 23717]

15 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Another instance where IDF and settlers shot and killed a father and son at at a funeral.

Cool cool. Funny how people feel really justified when they pick out and elevate videos of Palestinian children fucked in the head that have lived in a concentration camp their entire lives, but we don't get the same sort of nonsense posting the videos of the settler run schools where the children have been trained to regurgitate that they will eradicate all the arabs, or maybe leave a few behind to serve as slaves after their big holy war. Lots of pieces of shit on both sides in this one.  

Edited October 13, 2023 by Anastasis

[chainsaw 10307]

31 minutes ago, slorch said:

you take one, you lose 3, if not more.  It is necessary for their very existence.

I'm going to call bullshit on this.

Quote

Isreal also is attempting to alleviate civilian casualties by giving the warning.  "Hey, we intend to create a DMZ here, you might want to vacate the premises."

Nobody seriously believes this is a good faith or effective way to reduce civilian casualties. How do you relocate over 1.1 million people in 24 hours? All of the hospitals and necessary resources for supporting a 1.1m population are in the city. Where are the people going to live? Imagine a city of 1 million being forcibly evacuated to rural county 15 miles away. How do you accomplish that?

Even if you could do that here in the US, could you do it when the 1 million were deprived of food, water, electricity, and fuel for days? Most of them don't even have cars, by the way.

What's happening right now is a crime against humanity on par with some of the worst atrocities this world has ever seen. I am deeply ashamed of our government for its failure to prevent it.

[Willfully Horn 8284]

Stonekettle’s latest essay, “Sides,” is appropriately cautionary. Here’s a quotation, and the link.

”I went to war myself, once upon a time, because it was my sworn duty to do so. I willingly went to fight those who committed atrocities against mynation, against those who murdered my people and threatened my family. I did it. I did it for my own reasons and I'd do it again, and I would never be so crass as to deny you a similar choice. 

Here's the thing though: we won our war, but we lost the peace. 

We won our righteous war and we made the world all the worse for it. 

I would caution you to learn from our bitter mistakes -- though you probably won't. 

America can't end this fight, but we can for damn sure make it worse.”

 

https://www.stonekettle.com/2023/10/sides.html?m=1

[Brian Fantana 6875]

8 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You expect this happen before they respond to this terrorist attack? Or after? It's a serious question, because I've been blasted by you and others for characterizing your posts as suggesting Israel shouldn't respond to the attack on their soil. "No one is saying that!" But no one seems to actually have the balls to say "I think Israel shouldn't retaliate."

I'm just saying it should happen, needs to happen, for peace to ever be achieved. I think Israel has the right to destroy Hamas, but if they were really interested in a lasting peace, they would do it by eroding their support within Palestine by doing precisely what I suggested. It's the least shitty way of going about it, but it's also the most difficult and time consuming, and like I said, happens to be the only way for peace between the two to ever be achieved again.

15 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

But no one seems to actually have the balls to say "I think Israel shouldn't retaliate." No one also seems to have the balls to say "I think Israel is more to blame for the state of things than Palestine." I wish posters would have the fucking balls to be clear on their views.  I think both sides suck, espescially the last 20 years of Israel, but every major conflict wasn't initiated by Israel.

Instead its a lot of shit like 'stache's post above, where he says for 75 years Israel has been committing atrocities that don't get recognized so when Palestine fights back, Israel looks justified. Fucking just say who you think is most at fault. Have the courage of your convictions.

Oh, I'm sorry, are you confused or something? Israel's bloodthirsty shitpile of a government and the absolute freaks like Ben Gvir and Benjamin Netanyahu that lead it abso-fucking-lutely is more to blame for the state of things, 1000%. Unequivocally. Full stop. No question. And yeah, @'stache is correct. Why do you think the media covers this conflict in the way that it does? It's literally exactly so Israel can always appear to be justified in their actions.

20 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Now, as to the last part of your post, the onus of that first step being on Israel. Help me understand that. I'm not jewish. I'm not arab. I only know what I've seen and read over the course of my life. Why is that onus on Israel? Or more accurately, why has it ALWAYS been on Israel? Because every war seems to have been initiated by Palestine. Does 'stache have it right? Israel has always been working in the shadows? Straighten us out. It's one thing to say how bad things have gotten under Bibi and the last 20 years, but that isn't "always." 

I....what?

I literally don't understand the last few sentences you typed here. What you are saying doesn't fucking make sense. There's not even a coherent point or question there. The onus is on Israel because they are the only ones with the power to do the things I suggested. I'm not sure how that isn't clear.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Dropping in to wholeheartedly condemn all forms of genocide and child murder.  Also, retaliating with wholesale slaughter is not “self-defense.”

[hobbes2702 13505]

43 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

For the record, it wasn't you who basically called me a piece of shit (bloodthirsy and ignorant were the two). That was today, by other posters. 

Great post, and you have a lot of good points, most of which I agree with. You're right, racism is systemic, it's everywhere in our system, and comparing it isn't fair. But at the same time, the "I'm not defending Hamas, but" comment as it's form has been utilized in my posts and interactions today has been...a kneejerk excuse. I've got out of my way many times to discuss the here and now, what Israel's options are today, and what they should do, and I'm being met with some version of "You ignorant fuck, you don't understand the crimes Israel has committed for decades that have gone unrecognized." 

And I've never denied Israel has fucked up, that Israel has blame. But I keep trying to point out "RIGHT NOW" what should Isreal do, and no one has any answer other than to fucking dance around the subject and say "I'm not defending Hamas, but..." or telling me that I am ignorant and just don't understand. If you were on the other end of that, nevermind I've been vocally critical of Israel and defensive of Palestinians that aren't Hamas on several threads and posts the last few days, I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it.  Nevermind damn near everyone has said "Isreal should really do it's best to not hurt civilians." But the only reasonable and possible manner to no hurt innocent civilians is to seal their borders, stop the bombing, and do nothing. Do no retaliation. That's the ONLY way massive amount of civilians don't die. I think I heard that 40% of the Palestinians in Gaza are 15-16 and under. This is horrifying. 

So again, Hamas is forcing civilians to stay in North Gaza, and not evacuate. They're saying its psychological warfare and no bombs are coming. Who's blood is that hands on? Because when I suggest it's Hammas's, I get lectured or called ignorant, or accused of being a brainwashed bloodthirsty savage. 

 

First, thanks for re-iterating a point I and most other people have agreed with the entire thread. Maybe you should fucking read the thread?

Fuck off, you coward. I've read every post on this thread, the other thread, and been active on all of them. And you're right, some version of this conversation has been had, usually with you refusing to answer very straightforward questions directly because you know the light in which they'll paint you. You say "it doesn't matter whose hands the blood is on because civilians are going to die" on the same fucking day you basically accused a poster and Israel of being thrilled they can justify slaughting Palestinians because Hamas will use them as human shields. So...it sounds like it actually does fucking matter to you whose hands you think the blood is on...nevermind the fact damn near everyone has agreed they don't want to civilians to die, that both sides of each government have escalated this, but it doesn't stop you from jumping in and lecturing and condescending other posters the second they say something about Israel you don't agree with, namely that they're going to retaliate because they have no choice, and it's going to suck for everyone. It's what Hamas wants.

[SydneyCarton 49532]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm just saying it should happen, needs to happen, for peace to ever be achieved. I think Israel has the right to destroy Hamas, but if they were really interested in a lasting peace, they would do it by eroding their support within Palestine by doing precisely what I suggested. It's the least shitty way of going about it, but it's also the most difficult and time consuming, and like I said, happens to be the only way for peace between the two to ever be achieved again.

You're right. Someone is going to have to turn the other cheek. Why should it be Israel? To continue below:

 

Quote

Oh, I'm sorry, are you confused or something? Israel's bloodthirsty shitpile of a government and the absolute freaks like Ben Gvir and Benjamin Netanyahu that lead it abso-fucking-lutely is more to blame for the state of things, 1000%. Unequivocally. Full stop. No question. And yeah, @'stache is correct. Why do you think the media covers this conflict in the way that it does? It's literally exactly so Israel can always appear to be justified in their actions.

Israel's shitpile government under Bibi and Gvir is ass, my dude. No fucking doubt. But they weren't in power during the 1967 war, or the Yom Kippur war. The Munich Olympics. There's 75 years of attrocities here, but the total 15 years under Bibi are somehow outsized responsible for everything? I'll be reasonable and on my face say, yeah, I'm a bit skeptical there. Israel left Gaza in 2005, or somewhere around then, I believe. And then what happened? Before Bibi's 2nd term, I believe, as well.

 

Quote

I....what?

I literally don't understand the last few sentences you typed here. What you are saying doesn't fucking make sense. There's not even a coherent point or question there. The onus is on Israel because they are the only ones with the power to do the things I suggested. I'm not sure how that isn't clear.

I will try to clear it up, although it stil makes sense to me rereading in my head. You said the onus has ALWAYS been on Israel to take the first step in treating the Palestinians with humanity. Why has it ALWAYS been on Israel? Not just for the last 15 years under Bibi. You said always. Amidst the 1967 war, the Yom Kippur war, countless terrorist acts, rejected offers of a 2 state solution, many of which took place before Bibi's longest term in office, why is the onus always on Israel? Is that clear? Because I'd argue Israel tried to that when they evacuated Gaza in 2005 and...what happened?

[SydneyCarton 49532]

4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Your posting style suddenly bears a striking similarity to Incredulity. 

[hobbes2702 13505]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Your posting style suddenly bears a striking similarity to Incredulity. 
 

Ok.

[Tonesky 1059]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

The problem I have with that argument is that racism is a systemic, pervasive force while terrorism is broad category of intimidation tactics that inflict terror and death. There are similarities in that both are bad, but that's about where the similarities end.

Except here, where the avowed motivation of the terrorists is racism.  Hamas, like the KKK, is both terrorist and racist.

[bolverk 30366]

5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

No one also seems to have the balls to say "I think Israel is more to blame for the state of things than Palestine." I wish posters would have the fucking balls to be clear on their views.  I think both sides suck, espescially the last 20 years of Israel, but every major conflict wasn't initiated by Israel. 

 

Before I go, let me say this. Ultimately, I blame the fucking British for the original sin. As pointed out by author Arthur Koestler, "One nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third."

Without the consent of the people already there, who had been hoping to form their own country during/after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Brits took their land and promised it to a bunch of foreigners to carve out a new country. The existing Arab population wasn't too pleased, protested, and said, "No."  WW2 intervened, and the Brits were preoccupied with a war against a country that was hellbound on exterminating the European Jewish population.

After WW2, newly arrived Jews forced some 250,000 Palestinians off their land by razing their villages, poisoning their wells, and generally terrorizing them. Thus, the beginning of the Nakba. The UN, led largely by the US and other European nations, said, "Tough. We're going to carve out this country no matter what."

The majority Arabs were still none too pleased and said, "No, we don't want this country carved out of our land." But Israel was still declared. The Arabs fought back and lost, so an additional 500,000 Palestinians were expelled and forced to live on a quarter of their original territory.

Since then, it's been a struggle between a people who want their land back and a people who now occupy that same land.

No one alive today can be blamed for that original sin because they weren't born, and we can also recognize they're all justified in their desire to have a homeland. All we can currently do is blame specific shitheads (Hamas, radical Orthodox settlers, radical Islam, Likud) for the way that they're acting.

Until both sides recognize the need that the other has for a homeland, this will not end.

 

[Tonesky 1059]

17 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Dropping in to wholeheartedly condemn all forms of genocide and child murder.  Also, retaliating with wholesale slaughter is not “self-defense.”

 

11 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I will try to clear it up, although it stil makes sense to me rereading in my head. You said the onus has ALWAYS been on Israel to take the first step in treating the Palestinians with humanity. Why has it ALWAYS been on Israel? Not just for the last 15 years under Bibi. You said always. Amidst the 1967 war, the Yom Kippur war, countless terrorist acts, rejected offers of a 2 state solution, many of which took place before Bibi's longest term in office, why is the onus always on Israel? Is that clear? Because I'd argue Israel tried to that when they evacuated Gaza in 2005 and...what happened?

Yup, there is the rub.  No one disagrees with Hugo's comment, but none of the Israel critics (not you, Hugo) suggest any acceptable response by Israel that is actually calculated to protect Israel from future attack, that they would endorse (or at least not criticize) - other, of course, than Israel end the blockade, put down their arms, and trust that Palestinians treated with dignity and respect are sure to reciprocate.

[Brian Fantana 6875]

25 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You're right. Someone is going to have to turn the other cheek. Why should it be Israel? To continue below:

Ok, and what does Palestinians turning the other cheek accomplish? To answer that question, all you have to do is look at the West Bank. It has to be Israel because Israel has all the power, I can't believe that hasn't sunk in for you yet.

25 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Israel's shitpile government under Bibi and Gvir is ass, my dude. No fucking doubt. But they weren't in power during the 1967 war, or the Yom Kippur war. The Munich Olympics. There's 75 years of attrocities here, but the total 15 years under Bibi are somehow outsized responsible for everything? I'll be reasonable and on my face say, yeah, I'm a bit skeptical there. Israel left Gaza in 2005, or somewhere around then, I believe. And then what happened? Before Bibi's 2nd term, I believe, as well.

Why do you think all those things happened? Do you even understand the history of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, i.e. what actually happened and what's been happening since?

25 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I will try to clear it up, although it stil makes sense to me rereading in my head. You said the onus has ALWAYS been on Israel to take the first step in treating the Palestinians with humanity. Why has it ALWAYS been on Israel? Not just for the last 15 years under Bibi. You said always. Amidst the 1967 war, the Yom Kippur war, countless terrorist acts, rejected offers of a 2 state solution, many of which took place before Bibi's longest term in office, why is the onus always on Israel? Is that clear? Because I'd argue Israel tried to that when they evacuated Gaza in 2005 and...what happened?

Power. They have the power. That is why the onus is on them. Palestinians are entirely powerless in this situation. They have nothing, no power, no leadership, no hope. They can't do anything except survive.

Yes, the wars, and the terrorist attacks committed by both sides are disgusting, but it's all a result of things that were forced upon Palestinians. The offers of a 2-state solution were given knowing they were inadequate and would be rejected. Any fucking historian will tell you that, it's incredibly disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Again, I suggest if you want to see a good example of how a 2-state solution would work under a government like Israel's current one, simply look at the West Bank. There's no Hamas there. But there's damn sure a hell of a lot of Israeli terrorism going on.

e: As Bolverk said, of course Israel is not responsible for the original sin, it obviously didn't even exist when the Zionist movement began, and its existence was an imposition forced by 3rd parties.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Brian Fantana

[chainsaw 10307]

18 minutes ago, Tonesky said:

Except here, where the avowed motivation of the terrorists is racism.  Hamas, like the KKK, is both terrorist and racist.

the tactics can be employed for racist objectives but it doesn't necessary have to be. Hamas is radicalized, yes, but there are not 1.1m Hamas members being genocided right now.

[deech 2402]

65 pages in and surprised we don't have a consensus here on Surly on how to resolve the Israel Palestine issue.  

[Tonesky 1059]

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

the tactics can be employed for racist objectives but it doesn't necessary have to be. Hamas is radicalized, yes, but there are not 1.1m Hamas members being genocided right now.

Hyperbole much?  There are not 1.1m anyone being genocided right now.  And, no, that does not mean I endorse the shit those people are enduring.

[Dbeasy 15613]

After being sympathetic to Israel initially, I’m rapidly starting to change my viewpoint based upon real time events.

With more bombs being dropped on civilians in Gaza in a day than in a month in Afghanistan by the US, and a declaration that 1 million Palestinian people must leave, and a ground force about to do who knows what, it’s becoming clear that the atrocities of Hamas are starting to be matched or exceeded by Israel. There is no way Israel will be able to ferret out Hamas terrorists from the population without wholesale killing.  

The West can’t just stand by and let this happen. The response is going too far. It’s not proportionate. And most importantly, disproportionate responses never ultimately work. It just solidifies the determination of the enemy to resist even more for longer. 

[Covri 6375]

4 minutes ago, deech said:

65 pages in and surprised we don't have a consensus here on Surly on how to resolve the Israel Palestine issue.  

[Captain Obvious 531]

17 minutes ago, deech said:

65 pages in and surprised we don't have a consensus here on Surly on how to resolve the Israel Palestine issue.  

Introduce them to Aggy so they have a common enemy?

[SydneyCarton 49532]

8 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Ok, and what does Palestinians turning the other cheek accomplish? To answer that question, all you have to do is look at the West Bank. It has to be Israel because Israel has all the power, I can't believe that hasn't sunk in for you yet.

Why do you think all those things happened? Do you even understand the history of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, i.e. what actually happened and what's been happening since?

Power. They have the power. That is why the onus is on them. Palestinians are entirely powerless in this situation. They have nothing, no power, no leadership, no hope. They can't do anything except survive.

Yes, the wars, and the terrorist attacks committed by both sides are disgusting, but it's all a result of things that were forced upon Palestinians. The offers of a 2-state solution were given knowing they were inadequate and would be rejected. Any fucking historian will tell you that, it's incredibly disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Again, I suggest if you want to see a good example of how a 2-state solution would work under a government like Israel's current one, simply look at the West Bank. There's no Hamas there. But there's damn sure a hell of a lot of Israeli terrorism going on.

e: As Bolverk said, of course Israel is not responsible for the original sin, it obviously didn't even exist when the Zionist movement began, and its existence was an imposition forced by 3rd parties.

Ok. I'm starting to understand your point of view, Israel has to turn the other cheek because they have the power. 

I thought I had a pretty AVERAGE understanding of the Israeli witdhrawl from Gaza,  in 2005, which was basically an effort to cede the land to the Palestinians. I mean, Israel relocated people, many of whom protested vigorously and refused to leave, in an effort to hopefully build some kind of better relationship. Within 6 months or a year, Gaza had elected Hamas and terrorist attacks had ramped back up. 

As for what's happening since, yeah, escalation on all sides, Bibi sucks, we both agree there. But I somewhat disagree with you on Palestine having no power, and no leadership. They elected hamas. The've had the PA. I certainly agree that they have no fucking hope, espescially not now. 

As for the 2 state solution, you'd have to educate me on why they were so disingenous. I believe it was chainsaw who said that polling by Palestinians said a majority were in favor a 2 state solution. So what's disingenuous? The land size? No reparations? What? I know that in 2005 Israel forcibly relocated massive amounts of their citizens from Gaza and gave them control. Within a year they elected Hamas, and it's been escalation after escalation on both sides ever since. 

As for the West Bank...We've both agreed Bibi isn't doing shit, but there have been dozens of two state solutions rejected by whoever the Palestinian power brokers have been, and dozens of overtures to negotiate to which Palestinians ever bothered to even come to the table. And in modern times, well, that's not surprising considering the charter of Hamas is "exterminate all jews everywhere in the world."  So as to how a 2 state solution would work under Bibi, yeah, we agree. But you're focusing on everything past 2005, what about the 1967 offer where israel literally offered to give back almost all the land they had won after Palestine fucking tried to invade them? You say isreal has the power now, but Bibi hasn't always been the boss, and all the efforts have been roundly rejected, including efforts to even negotiate. And shockingly when a government of Hamas was elected in 2006, and escalation started, israel escalated as well. But to say Palestine has never had any power, I just don't agree with that. If they've had the ability to reject offers, they've had power. 

[SydneyCarton 49532]

20 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

After being sympathetic to Israel initially, I’m rapidly starting to change my viewpoint based upon real time events.

With more bombs being dropped on civilians in Gaza in a day than in a month in Afghanistan by the US, and a declaration that 1 million Palestinian people must leave, and a ground force about to do who knows what, it’s becoming clear that the atrocities of Hamas are starting to be matched or exceeded by Israel. There is no way Israel will be able to ferret out Hamas terrorists from the population without wholesale killing.  

The West can’t just stand by and let this happen. The response is going too far. It’s not proportionate. And most importantly, disproportionate responses never ultimately work. It just solidifies the determination of the enemy to resist even more for longer. 

I've got some bad news for you buddy, we're going to do nothing and tacitly endorse it. 

[Anastasis 23717]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I've got some bad news for you buddy, we're going to do nothing and tacitly endorse it. 

Not nothing, really. We are going to park two carrier groups off the shore, fly arms and ammunition in, and wash our hands of it. "Nothing" would actually be an improvement. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

I think both sides suck, espescially the last 20 years of Israel, but every major conflict wasn't initiated by Israel. 

This is my position. That doesn’t mean I endorse anything Israel is going to do, but to pretend Palestinians aren’t the instigators is asinine. Palestinians don’t want peace. They have proven it time and time again. They continually choose the path of violence when offered peace. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

8 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I've got some bad news for you buddy, we're going to do nothing and tacitly endorse it. 

We killed thousands of civilians based on a lie in Iraq. We can’t tell anyone shit. (Even though we are doing exactly that to Putin in Ukraine)

[Dahobbs 18391]

35 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

And most importantly, disproportionate responses never ultimately work. 

Historically, this isn't true. They work all the time. Killing everyone is in fact a time tested strategy, e.g., Rome and Carthage, U.S. and Japan, U.S. and Native Americans. Peace is certainly possible through other means, but let's not pretend that complete and total annihilation of an enemy doesn't work. What often fails is half measures that leave everyone dissatisfied and bitter. 

[Satchel 6983]

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This is my position. That doesn’t mean I endorse anything Israel is going to do, but to pretend Palestinians aren’t the instigators is asinine. Palestinians don’t want peace. They have proven it time and time again. They continually choose the path of violence when offered peace. 

Hamas has not allowed an election in Gaza in 17 years and has ruled its inhabitants with an iron hand. Palestinians live in fear. To suggest that they are reflexively tethered to violence and chaos is somewhat like assuming all Texans co-sign Republican placement of razor wire on the banks of the Rio Grande.

[Fud 9724]

 

[G650 14450]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Historically, this isn't true. They work all the time. Killing everyone is in fact a time tested strategy, e.g., Rome and Carthage, U.S. and Japan, U.S. and Native Americans. Peace is certainly possible through other means, but let's not pretend that complete and total annihilation of an enemy doesn't work. What often fails is half measures that leave everyone dissatisfied and bitter. 

People keep bringing up Japan, it's really not a good example. Did we kill an insane amount of people? Absolutely. Everyone? Not even fucking close. It was in no way, shape or form eradicating Japan.

 

The native Americans, absolutely, but I'm not sure I'd classify that as a success by any metric.

[SydneyCarton 49532]

1 minute ago, Satchel said:

Hamas has not allowed an election in Gaza in 17 years and has ruled its inhabitants with an iron hand. Palestinians live in fear. To suggest that they are reflexively tethered to violence and chaos is somewhat like assuming all Texans co-sign Republican placement of razor wire on the banks of the Rio Grande.

Maybe. Probably. But those people rejected the PA, which is roundly stil despised, and elected a group who's charter was literally jewish genocide. They may regret that decision, but they elected it. And nevermind people keep talking about how Bibi is, and how things have been since Hamas got elected. But that's ignoring the dozens of offers to find a solution that happened BEFORE 2006. You can't simply look at the past 17 years when Israel started going authoritarian AF. There's been opportunities in every decade since the 1967 war to broker a peace, accept a 2 state solution, or negotiate in good faith and they've all roundly been rejected. 

You can't make excuses for Palestine over and over again, over the course of 75+ years of fighting and atrocities on both sides, they're the ones who always reject any path towards peace, whatsoever, time and again. That can't be all on fucking Israel. And it's been going on since long before Hamas. 

[Dahobbs 18391]

1 minute ago, G650 said:

People keep bringing up Japan, it's really not a good example. Did we kill an insane amount of people? Absolutely. Everyone? Not even fucking close. It was in no way, shape or form eradicating Japan.

 

The native Americans, absolutely, but I'm not sure I'd classify that as a success by any metric.

You don't have to kill everyone. But thoroughly defeating an enemy so that it, and its people, have no choice but to recognize your superiority is absolutely an effective strategy. And it is exactly what we did in World War II. As to Native Americans, no one in the US has worried about raids from Native American tribes for nearly 200 years. So yes, yes it worked. I didn't say anything about it being humane or fair. But it definitely worked. 

[Michael Knight 13239]

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

Quote

The past week has shown humanity at its worst: A horrific terrorist attack left at least 1,300 Israelis dead, among them peace activists and even innocent children. The fates of many more kidnapped civilians still lie in the balance. Meanwhile, statements from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggest retaliation against Palestinians in Gaza will be swift and merciless. More than 1,500 Gazans are already dead, and 338,000 others have been displaced. In moments of turmoil such as this, some believe it is the responsibility of a newspaper of record like The Onion to delve fully into the nuances of a complex and multifaceted conflict that stretches back not just decades but centuries. These people are wrong.

 

Instead, this editorial board wishes to take this opportunity to declare its full and unequivocal support for Israel because, frankly, it seems like you get in way less trouble for that.

Let us be clear: This is a fraught moment, and one that has polarized not only Americans but people all over the world. It demands incredible sensitivity and strict adherence to journalistic standards of objectivity, and simply put, that is something we aren’t willing to do. Rather, we’re just going to say The Onion expresses its steadfast solidarity with Israel and leave it at that.

Why? First, because this editorial board doesn’t like getting yelled at. Second, there are going to be way fewer people with way less power mad at us. We don’t want to go up against the entire U.S. government, which through President Biden has expressed its unwavering support for Israel. Finally, and more importantly, it’s because we don’t want to and you can’t make us. You can’t. You seriously can’t. You cannot make us do all of this hard stuff. Ever. Seriously.

Furthermore, we should remember that unpacking this conflict in an adequately thorough manner would require examining it through a diverse range of lenses such as antisemitism, Islamic fundamentalism, the Holocaust, imperialism, contact theory, and many more, all while keeping in mind valid but competing narratives of victimhood that span hundreds of years. And we sure as hell aren’t going to mention apartheid. That sounds like an enormous headache. Even worse, our reward for that would be mobs of people screaming at us online. Why would we do that?

Alternatively, we could simply say, “Israel must be fully supported in its military campaign to root out evil in all of its hiding places.” That 19-word sentence would save us the trouble of engaging with this difficult situation. So we’re going to go with that one.

Does that make sense? We think it does.

Our stance becomes increasingly compelling when one considers some alternative scenarios. For instance, The Onion could theoretically say that it stands in solidarity with the bombing victims in Gaza. What would happen then? People would get mad at us. They could threaten our careers. How about if we said we believe the loss of innocent life is wrong no matter what the nationality? That would also result in people getting mad at us. Sometimes these would be different people getting mad, but that doesn’t really change things on our end. And most significantly, it could hurt our quarterly revenue, which is the worst tragedy imaginable.

For those reasons, and many more, we are not going to be endorsing any of those perspectives. Instead, the stance of standing unwaveringly with Israel, now and forever, seems to really be the sweet spot for those looking to avoid dealing with all of this shit.

“What of the tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians killed before this attack?” some may ask. Our response is simply that we aren’t going to engage with that because it would be too hard. We also won’t be addressing Palestinians living in refugee camps without access to clean water, electricity, or housing. Others may ask, “Isn’t it your responsibility to provide context, particularly on thorny issues such as this one?” To that, we merely say: No, shut up. You’re being annoying.

Perhaps some would call on us to point out the obvious moral hypocrisy of those far-left Americans who bandy about terms like “war criminal” while turning a blind eye to what amounts to an unconscionable war crime on the part of Hamas. But we are also not going to do that. Why? Because people will get angry with us—extremely irritating people, to be clear—and we just don’t want to deal with it. We have enough going on without them getting on our case. The water main broke in our office last Friday and dealing with the super has been a whole thing. He keeps avoiding our calls because obviously he’s going to have to eat the cost of the sump pump. There’s also a bunch of ad sales stuff that we’re negotiating with the business side. So why would we add defending ourselves against online criticism over one of the most incendiary topics in human history to the list of headaches we’re already dealing with? Why?

The answer is that we won’t.

Some may call us cowards for our decision. To this, we can only say the following: If a coward is a person who avoids taking a difficult stance on topics for personal expediency, then “coward” is a badge this editorial board will gladly wear, again and again and again.

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

Edited October 13, 2023 by Michael Knight

[Anastasis 23717]

huh, killing everyone works. really compelling insight on that one DA. 

[G650 14450]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You don't have to kill everyone. But thoroughly defeating an enemy so that it, and its people, have no choice but to recognize your superiority is absolutely an effective strategy. And it is exactly what we did in World War II. As to Native Americans, no one in the US has worried about raids from Native American tribes for nearly 200 years. So yes, yes it worked. I didn't say anything about it being humane or fair. But it definitely worked. 

Yeah I mean if your only goal is to not have raids.

 

But anyway, the Japan comparison is not apt. People are talking about eliminating Palestine as an entity. We never did that to Japan.

[RDCanecutter 26917]

57 minutes ago, deech said:

65 pages in and surprised we don't have a consensus here on Surly on how to resolve the Israel Palestine issue.  

Give it all back to the Ottomans and ask them to try again.

[G650 14450]

 

 

[Dbeasy 15613]

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Historically, this isn't true. They work all the time. Killing everyone is in fact a time tested strategy, e.g., Rome and Carthage, U.S. and Japan, U.S. and Native Americans. Peace is certainly possible through other means, but let's not pretend that complete and total annihilation of an enemy doesn't work. What often fails is half measures that leave everyone dissatisfied and bitter. 

Ha that’s why I said disproportionate response and not annihilation. Of course annihilation works. No one is left to be the enemy. 

[F250 29204]

31 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

We killed thousands of civilians based on a lie in Iraq. We can’t tell anyone shit. (Even though we are doing exactly that to Putin in Ukraine)

 

[SydneyCarton 49532]

1 minute ago, F250 said:

 

Damn, that's savage dude. 

[jimmyjazz 47295]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Your posting style suddenly bears a striking similarity to Incredulity. 

Damn.  I know y'all been slap-fighting, but that's a cold shot.

[Dahobbs 18391]

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

huh, killing everyone works. really compelling insight on that one DA. 

I was responding to a post that suggested it didn't. That is all. 

[SydneyCarton 49532]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Damn.  I know y'all been slap-fighting, but that's a cold shot.

1) look at my post right above yours. That's some timing.

2.) Maybe he should stop with one sentence replies and meme pics and a refusal to answer any direct questions, much less hypocritical bullshit. 

[Dahobbs 18391]

15 minutes ago, G650 said:

Yeah I mean if your only goal is to not have raids.

 

But anyway, the Japan comparison is not apt. People are talking about eliminating Palestine as an entity. We never did that to Japan.

I wasn't comparing it to any particular suggestion in relationship to this conflict. I was simply responding to the idea that a disproportionate response never works. Japan destroyed some ships. We leveled cities. Disproportionate responses work.  But that doesn't mean they are the moral or correct thing to do. 

[HenryJames 67464]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I know y'all been slap-fighting, but that's a cold shot.

Yeah, that's a drag.

[Neonmoon 38130]

48 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Hamas has not allowed an election in Gaza in 17 years and has ruled its inhabitants with an iron hand. Palestinians live in fear. To suggest that they are reflexively tethered to violence and chaos is somewhat like assuming all Texans co-sign Republican placement of razor wire on the banks of the Rio Grande.

What about the 69 years before 2006?

[Bullneck 19560]

Twitter video of the Hamas attack.  WARNING: It's as bad as you've heard.

Spoiler

I'm not kidding.  If you have any doubts don't click.  This isn't my usual bullshit spoiler where you click and see the Three Stooges or something.  It's ugly.

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

 I made the mistake of clicking that. 

[G650 14450]

19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I wasn't comparing it to any particular suggestion in relationship to this conflict. I was simply responding to the idea that a disproportionate response never works. Japan destroyed some ships. We leveled cities. Disproportionate responses work.  But that doesn't mean they are the moral or correct thing to do. 

 

We are talking about two separate things, yes I agree dropping a nuclear bomb was clearly disproportionate, but it's not eradication, which some people are floating. It's an important distinction.

 

On the second part, yes I agree. My point is success has to be determined in the long term implications, and there's a lot of downstream repercussions beyond "these people aren't shooting me anymore". I'm not suggesting that is going to be a big factor in the Israeli response though.