Israel

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, BeardIP said:

And if it doesn't and Palestine (the government, not each of the individual 2.5mm people) does what it's always done and agitated for more with violence, are you going to just pick up the needle and reset it at the beginning of your loop of "Israel did XYZ for XYZ number of years and they need to make the first step here, etc. etc."?

Because I think that's the risk here. You give, yet again, an inch, a mile gets taken, and then somehow it's still not good enough or in good faith.

The only other option is to keep doing what you're doing in the hopes that endless cycles of violence don't lead to the type of internal politics that threaten the state of Israel as we know it.

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Or, maybe "ordinary" Palestinians should work together with Israel to eliminate Hamas. 

Who's in a better position to eliminate Hamas? Israel or some of the poorest people in the Middle East?

[DixonHur 11171]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Who's in a better position to eliminate Hamas? Israel or some of the poorest people in the Middle East?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed the "with the help of Israel" part...or hell, if they don't want to work with Israel, how about Egypt.  You know they are part of the Gaza blockade too, right?

[David Dennison 18652]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed the "with the help of Israel" part...or hell, if they don't want to work with Israel, how about Egypt.  You know they are part of the Gaza blockade too, right?

So you expect ordinary Palestinians to work with Israel to eliminate Hamas when they are required to stay in Gaza?

I mean, maybe.

Edited October 19, 2023 by David Dennison

[DixonHur 11171]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So you expect ordinary Palestinians to work with Israel to eliminate Hamas when they are required to stay in Gaza?

I mean, maybe.

If they want peace, yes.

It's not complicated.  Hamas and their refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Israel are the problem. 

Here's the latest update to Hamas' "charter" from way back in 2017.

[txhorns 2408]

3 hours ago, chainsaw said:

 A majority of Palestinians polled are supportive of a two-state solution, with 1967 borders, if it meant peace. but the data exists.

Do you mind sharing that data?

[Brian Fantana 6667]

53 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I like that plan.  Truly, I do.  I think Israel should do each of those things.

In response, what should the Palestinians do?  And...what do you think they'll actually do?  Because in such matters, "what comes next" is important.

It is important, but as I've said numerous times, the only two realistic paths forward are killing them all or Israel starting the ball rolling by doing each of those things. Palestinians have nothing to offer besides a continued state of baseline survival and lashing out vs. what they and plenty of others believe to be unconscionable oppression.

At that point, there will either be no Palestinians left in Gaza and the West Bank, or hopefully Israel's hypothetical actions would be seen as an adequate olive branch.

Of course, the most likely outcome is that Israel rolls into Gaza and annexes all of it, or at least the northern part, and then the violence on both sides resumes/continues to escalate. West Bank Palestinians will continue to be murdered and have their homes stolen by motherfuckers from Brooklyn.

The cycle continues unabated and all of the "former Republicans" here can go back to quietly hating browns. Ok, come on, that was a joke.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Brian Fantana

[Brian Fantana 6667]

16 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

If they want peace, yes.

It's not complicated.  Hamas and their refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Israel are the problem. 

Here's the latest update to Hamas' "charter" from way back in 2017.

Again, for the millionth time, yes Hamas is a problem, and a big one, but the idea that they're the only problem is a ridiculous canard.

Again, for the millionth time, there is no Hamas presence in the West Bank, and yet those people continue to be killed and have their homes stolen by Israeli settlers, with the backing of the Israeli government. Again, for the millionth time, what's the excuse there?

[chainsaw 9837]

14 minutes ago, txhorns said:

Do you mind sharing that data?

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah

[Poe It Up 126]

14 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah

“Half agreed that Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction.” Wow, they’re really enlightened. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

18 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Palestinians have nothing to offer besides a continued state of baseline survival and lashing out vs. what they and plenty of others believe to be unconscionable oppression.

Nothing to offer? Is there anything stopping the Palestinians from flourishing in the West Bank? (Yes, I know Israel. Let’s assume Israel stops all settlement in the West Bank and removes any current or prior settlements).

[Brian Fantana 6667]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

Nothing to offer? Is there anything stopping the Palestinians from flourishing in the West Bank? (Yes, I know Israel. Let’s assume Israel stops all settlement in the West Bank and removes any current or prior settlements).

I mean Palestinians in Gaza specifically.

[Neonmoon 38127]

21 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah

This part of the data is troubling for Israelis 

Quote

57% of Gazans express at least a somewhat positive opinion of Hamas—along with similar percentages of Palestinians in the West Bank (52%) and East Jerusalem (64%)—though Gazans who express this opinion of Hamas are fewer than the number of Gazans who have a positive view of Fatah (64%).

 

[Brisketexan 104561]

25 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

t is important, but as I've said numerous times, the only two realistic paths forward are killing them all or Israel starting the ball rolling by doing each of those things. Palestinians have nothing to offer besides a continued state of baseline survival and lashing out vs. what they and plenty of others believe to be unconscionable oppression.

At that point, there will either be no Palestinians left in Gaza and the West Bank, or hopefully Israel's hypothetical actions would be seen as an adequate olive branch.

Of course, the most likely outcome is that Israel rolls into Gaza and annexes all of it, or at least the northern part, and then the violence on both sides resumes/continues to escalate. West Bank Palestinians will continue to be murdered and have their homes stolen by motherfuckers from Brooklyn.

I don't disagree with trying shit.  I do disagree that Palestinians have nothing to offer.  Start with this:

2 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

“Half agreed that Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction.”

If you came to my house and told me that "hey, Brisket....good news.  Half of your neighbors agree that you shouldn't be wiped off the face of the earth," that would not be a particularly comforting conversation.  So, I'd counter that the Palestinians DO have something to offer....simply get to a majority belief that "Israel and jews can live."  That would be a great good-faith starting point.

But, I agree with you on the most likely outcome.  Half of Palestinians, give or take, will still believe that Israel should be destroyed.  Israel will continue to be an overbearing bull in a china shop and escalate violence in both Gaza and the West Bank, and sure as shit won't reform its ways of settlements and such.  The water crisis in the levant might yet be solved by watering the fields with blood.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  There's no realistic hope for any peace there.  Not in the lifetimes of our grandchildren's grandchildren.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't disagree with trying shit.  I do disagree that Palestinians have nothing to offer.  Start with this:

If you came to my house and told me that "hey, Brisket....good news.  Half of your neighbors agree that you shouldn't be wiped off the face of the earth," that would not be a particularly comforting conversation.  So, I'd counter that the Palestinians DO have something to offer....simply get to a majority belief that "Israel and jews can live."  That would be a great good-faith starting point.

But, I agree with you on the most likely outcome.  Half of Palestinians, give or take, will still believe that Israel should be destroyed.  Israel will continue to be an overbearing bull in a china shop and escalate violence in both Gaza and the West Bank, and sure as shit won't reform its ways of settlements and such.  The water crisis in the levant might yet be solved by watering the fields with blood.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  There's no realistic hope for any peace there.  Not in the lifetimes of our grandchildren's grandchildren.

I should have clarified that I don't believe Palestinians in Gaza specifically have anything to offer Israel at the negotiating table that the Israeli government will care about.

God it really gets tiring trying to get people to read your words correctly but I admit this one is my fault.

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, BeardIP said:

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

I think a lot of people have trouble with the irony of Israel's treatment of Palestinians given what happened in the Holocaust.

[Brisketexan 104561]

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I should have clarified that I don't believe Palestinians in Gaza specifically have anything to offer Israel at the negotiating table that the Israeli government will care about.

Yeah....even with the clarification, I don't think that "maybe get to a point where a real-deal majority of you don't call for the extermination of Israel and the jews" is a big ask.  For fuck's sake, I probably agree with most every other ask they would have, save and except asks that amount to "Israel is gone, either by use of force or by their willing surrender and evacuation of the levant."  But a starting point of "Fine....I no longer call for your genocide" is a really, really important starting point.

[Brisketexan 104561]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I think a lot of people have trouble with the irony of Israel's treatment of Palestinians given what happened in the Holocaust.

Indeed.

Yet it's also predictable (you know, how we think that a violent response of the Palestinians is predictable) that a people who have been REPEATEDLY subjected to calls for their extermination, including a holocaust within living memory that damn near got the job done, and then numerous wars seeking the same, and facing a current foe that pledges to do the same, MIGHT react a little viscerally.

TLDR; people who have been repeatedly subjected to actual acts and attempts at genocide are gonna have a BIT of a hair trigger when you call for their genocide and kill their innocents.

[David Dennison 18652]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Indeed.

Yet it's also predictable (you know, how we think that a violent response of the Palestinians is predictable) that a people who have been REPEATEDLY subjected to calls for their extermination, including a holocaust within living memory that damn near got the job done, and then numerous wars seeking the same, and facing a current foe that pledges to do the same, MIGHT react a little viscerally.

TLDR; people who have been repeatedly subjected to actual acts and attempts at genocide are gonna have a BIT of a hair trigger when you call for their genocide and kill their innocents.

Given the military disparity that exists in the Middle East, calls for the elimination of the state as Israel mean about as much as Death to America.

Edited October 19, 2023 by David Dennison

[chainsaw 9837]

31 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

“Half agreed that Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction.” Wow, they’re really enlightened. 

It was a compound question that had other parts to it. Nearly 70% supported a continued ceasefire.

[Poe It Up 126]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Given the military disparity that exists in the Middle East, calls for the elimination of the state as Israel mean about as much as Death to America.

Holy shit. 

[David Dennison 18652]

2 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Holy shit. 

You really think these groups are an existential threat to the state of Israel? I don't.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

19 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Biden telling Hamas that they “gotta learn how to shoot straight” is totally fucking awesome and makes me want to have more old-ass presidents. 
 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2023/10/18/press-gaggle-by-president-biden-and-nsc-coordinator-for-strategic-communications-john-kirby-ramstein-air-base-germany/

 

 

 

In a lot of ways, there's a lot to like about ol' Joe.  Being a career politician learns you some stuff.

[Da Fino 2735]

5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

It was a compound question that had other parts to it. Nearly 70% supported a continued ceasefire.

Well given the military disparity that exists in the Middle East, I would hope so. 

[TwiceHorn 31265]

18 hours ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

 what other threads do you post in?  you sure became active in this one, and I've never seen this handle before.

He's been around elsewhere.  Stop.

[hobbes2702 12799]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You really think these groups are an existential threat to the state of Israel? I don't.

Y u do dis?

[Brisketexan 104561]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Given the military disparity that exists in the Middle East, calls for the elimination of the state as Israel mean about as much as Death to America.

 

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You really think these groups are an existential threat to the state of Israel? I don't.

This take is one of the most disingenuous and tone-deaf takes on this board, and that says something.

"Look....they simply don't have the resources to kill ALL the jews.  Maybe just 5% of them.  So that's not really a threat, and I don't see why Israel and jewish people have their panties in a bunch."

For fuck's sake.  If a group has pledged to exterminate your group, and has a demonstrated track record (right up to a week and a half ago) of slaughtering members of your group in real-deal numbers, then you and the members of your group live in constant terror that you are going to be next.  That's why they call it terrorism.

"Hey Brisket, I'm going to shoot dead your whole family, ending your family line."

"Now Brisket, don't overreact.  He only has one bullet.  He simply CAN'T shoot your WHOLE family.  So, chill out."

Meanwhile, Brisket stands there with his family wondering which one of us he uses his bullet on.  Me?  My wife?  My daughter?  My son?  And you expect me to take the fact that three of us will still be alive at the end of the day as some fucking consolation? 

Fuck.

That.

Shit.

"Sure, they SAY they want to genocide all the jews, but as a practical matter, they can only kill them a thousand or so at a time" is not the fucking rebuttal you think it is. It's fucking disgusting and embarrassing to even utter, but there you go with it.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

 

This take is one of the most disingenuous and tone-deaf takes on this board, and that says something.

"Look....they simply don't have the resources to kill ALL the jews.  Maybe just 5% of them.  So that's not really a threat, and I don't see why Israel and jewish people have their panties in a bunch."

For fuck's sake.  If a group has pledged to exterminate your group, and has a demonstrated track record (right up to a week and a half ago) of slaughtering members of your group in real-deal numbers, then you and the members of your group live in constant terror that you are going to be next.  That's why they call it terrorism.

"Hey Brisket, I'm going to shoot dead your whole family, ending your family line."

"Now Brisket, don't overreact.  He only has one bullet.  He simply CAN'T shoot your WHOLE family.  So, chill out."

Meanwhile, Brisket stands there with his family wondering which one of us he uses his bullet on.  Me?  My wife?  My daughter?  My son?  And you expect me to take the fact that three of us will still be alive at the end of the day as some fucking consolation? 

Fuck.

That.

Shit.

"Sure, they SAY they want to genocide all the jews, but as a practical matter, they can only kill them a thousand or so at a time" is not the fucking rebuttal you think it is. It's fucking disgusting and embarrassing to even utter, but there you go with it.

Let's not slide back into the all Palestinians are Hamas and also terrorists and want the Jews dead merry-go-round again.

However, @David Dennison is not correct here, any terrorist organization that calls for the extermination of any group of people is an existential threat, even if they don't have the ability to carry out the threat.

The flip side is that Israel is, of course, an existential threat to Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank. At least until Netanyahu and his cronies eats some polonium for breakfast or something.

[Chuckie Finster 22598]

20 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Biden telling Hamas that they “gotta learn how to shoot straight” is totally fucking awesome and makes me want to have more old-ass presidents. 
 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2023/10/18/press-gaggle-by-president-biden-and-nsc-coordinator-for-strategic-communications-john-kirby-ramstein-air-base-germany/

 

 

 

In a completely predictable twist, many right wing nutjobs are latching onto this quote as if Biden was giving Hamas a request rather than giving them shit.  I know because one of them is my mother and I'm about to lose my mind.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

To me, Israel's biggest flaw is the following.

In 1948 they were FRESH off the memory of the holocaust, three, four years.  So, yeah, they might have been a little aggro and overly so.  But also perhaps understandably.

Then, of course, they were immediately invaded by essentially all of their neighbors on the premise not only that they had no legal right to exist, but no existential right to exist or even live, even if elsewhere.

And then that shit continued on, sporadically, to the present.

So, Israel from the outset has an understandably "under siege" mentality.  Various events over the last 75 years have tended to support that notion, but ever less so.

In the meantime, Israel has pretty effectively kicked the living shit out of everyone that fucked with them, and built a pretty nice society for themselves, including a fairly awesome military.

All the while, the threats to its existence becoming less and less credible.

But, like the US and other places, fear-mongering politicians have kept that siege mentality going for their own benefit, stoking fear etc.

I get where they came from, but they need to chill the fuck out, in my opinion.

They are an advanced and wealthy society, almost all of their neighbors are not.  They need to start being the "bigger person" in this.

That said, still fuck the jihadist turds.

Edited October 19, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

However, @David Dennison is not correct here, any terrorist organization that calls for the extermination of any group of people is an existential threat, even if they don't have the ability to carry out the threat.

Yeah, I don't agree with that. Power matters. 

[Anastasis 23393]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Maybe we should also read a history book.  In periods when Israel was NOT doing the oppressive shit you presently complain about (and again, I don't disagree with the criticism)......did its Palestinian neighbors grant it security?  Fuck no.

What timeframe was that again?

[TwiceHorn 31265]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, I don't agree with that. Power matters. 

Where religious fanaticism is involved, I think that makes the power imbalance a smidgen less,at least. 

But as stated above, the power balance in Israel's favor does matter. 

 

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He's been around elsewhere.  Stop.

He answered me last night.  Why are you digging it back up?  And I did stop.  Up until you quoted me I have not been in this thread today.  Don't quote me again and I'll be sure to stop. I'm out.
 

[chainsaw 9837]

29 minutes ago, Da Fino said:

Well given the military disparity that exists in the Middle East, I would hope so. 

The data pretty clearly supports the conclusion that peace is more popular in Gaza than violence is. They don't deserve to be starved or collectively punished.

[956 Worldwide 34422]

From a purely rational and self-interest perspective, the fact that Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel is all the more reason to destroy them completely and rapidly. You would have to treat an actual existential threat much more seriously and carefully because of the damage they are capable of inflicting on you.

The balance of power has protected Hamas. Israel felt secure and safe, underestimated Hamas’ will and capabilities, and allowed that to cloud their vigilance. It is actually a fairly big humanitarian win that Israel allowed them to exist and govern this long given the asymmetry, very few other nations in a similar situation would tolerate their existence and just invest in Iron Dome. 
 

Hamas is in the in-between of not being strong enough to pose an existential threat but strong enough to kill 1000 plus people on a single day in the most spectacularly violent means imaginable. 

[Brisketexan 104561]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What timeframe was that again?

Being that what we're discussing at present is Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, pre- the Six Day war in 1967.

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

From a purely rational and self-interest perspective, the fact that Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel is all the more reason to destroy them completely and rapidly. You would have to treat an actual existential threat much more seriously and carefully because of the damage they are capable of inflicting on you.

The balance of power has protected Hamas. Israel felt secure and safe, underestimated Hamas’ will and capabilities, and allowed that to cloud their vigilance. It is actually a fairly big humanitarian win that Israel allowed them to exist and govern this long given the asymmetry, very few other nations in a similar situation would tolerate their existence and just invest in Iron Dome. 
 

Hamas is in the in-between of not being strong enough to pose an existential threat but strong enough to kill 1000 plus people on a single day in the most spectacularly violent means imaginable. 

Which is why Israel has every right to try to stop them and eliminate the threat.

That does not mean they should use eliminating the threat of Hamas as a pretext for collective punishment.

[956 Worldwide 34422]

1 hour ago, BeardIP said:

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

You can do it all the time and it is happening quite successfully in other places. You do have to be a fundamentally different type of regime than Israel is to actually pull it off. 

[Brisketexan 104561]

19 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Let's not slide back into the all Palestinians are Hamas and also terrorists and want the Jews dead merry-go-round again.

However, @David Dennison is not correct here, any terrorist organization that calls for the extermination of any group of people is an existential threat, even if they don't have the ability to carry out the threat.

The flip side is that Israel is, of course, an existential threat to Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank. At least until Netanyahu and his cronies eats some polonium for breakfast or something.

Not backsliding on that first point, and didn't intend to communicate it that way.

And thank you for the second paragraph and the third for that matter.  I felt like I was taking crazy pills.

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, I don't agree with that. Power matters. 

Cool.  It's beyond debate that I can't kill your entire family.  Just one member.  Which one are you okay with me killing?  Since, you know, my limited power to carry through on my threat of complete termination matters.

 

6 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The data pretty clearly supports the conclusion that peace is more popular in Gaza than violence is. They don't deserve to be starved or collectively punished.

I agree with your conclusion.  Israel's current fight is and should be constrained to being just with Hamas.  The complete blockade of Gaza is wrong - even if it was calculated as a military move, it is of limited military utility.  It is mostly a mechanism of collective punishment of an entire population, and that's bullshit.

But the flipside is that yes, Israel gets to fight Hamas. And if Hamas is using civilians as human shields from actual military action, that war crime is on Hamas.

[David Dennison 18652]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Being that what we're discussing at present is Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, pre- the Six Day war in 1967.

Wasn't that a time when Israel was preventing Palestinians from returning to their homes and villages?

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool.  It's beyond debate that I can't kill your entire family.  Just one member.  Which one are you okay with me killing?  Since, you know, my limited power to carry through on my threat of complete termination matters.

Who said Israel should be OK with it?

[chainsaw 9837]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 if Hamas is using civilians as human shields from actual military action, that war crime is on Hamas.

The human shield thing seems to happen a lot less frequently than Israel claims it does.

[Brisketexan 104561]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Wasn't that a time when Israel was preventing Palestinians from returning to their homes and villages?

You mean the ones they left in order to allow for the previous plan to exterminate Israel to proceed?  Those homes and villages?

Come on, man.

Trying to completely black-hat white-hat the matter in the 1948-1967 period is bullshit and you know it.

[Brisketexan 104561]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

The human shield thing seems to happen a lot less frequently than Israel claims it does.

And a lot more frequently than you'd like to acknowledge.  Those noted hard-right fanatics at....Amnesty International agree (examining past conflicts -- the current one is still quite the foggy picture):

Quote

In previous conflicts Amnesty International has documented that Palestinian armed groups have stored munitions in and fired indiscriminate rockets from residential areas in the Gaza Strip in violation of international humanitarian law.

 

[InkaUtexas 25497]

50 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You really think these groups are an existential threat to the state of Israel? I don't.

Well the Arab nations have tried a few times. How did that work out for them? 

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

You mean the ones they left in order to allow for the previous plan to exterminate Israel to proceed?  Those homes and villages?

Come on, man.

Trying to completely black-hat white-hat the matter in the 1948-1967 period is bullshit and you know it.

Put this in the context of the Nakba.

 

[Brisketexan 104561]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Put this in the context of the Nakba.

 

The context of the Nakba that is one way of characterizing a Palestinian exodus of differing motivations?  You do understand that simply the use of that term is a characterization of the event that is entirely one-sided.

Which is the entire fucking problem here.  Functionally nobody is arguing that the Palestinians haven't eaten some measure of shit sandwich, and that they shouldn't have basic human rights and some outcome that involves sovereignty and self-determination.  But the "Nakba" that you describe is a narrative of nothing but poor Palestinian victims, and wicked jews.  When you damned well know that the act of Palestinians vacating lands was not monolithic and had mixed motivations, including "I'll leave so my Arab brothers can come in and exterminate the jews, then I'll get all my land back and then some."

The conversation will never get any traction as long as it's painted as "no, see, all Palestinians are murderous antisemitic animals and must be caged" or "the Palestinian people are all innocent victims, and should get back everything they had pre-1948."  If you want to stick with white-hat v black-hat narratives, you'll get ongoing conflict.  Which is what we've been doing.  And what we've gotten.  So, by all means, keep pushing that narrative.  It's been super successful.

[David Dennison 18652]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Functionally nobody is arguing that the Palestinians haven't eaten some measure of shit sandwich, and that they shouldn't have basic human rights and some outcome that involves sovereignty and self-determination.  But the "Nakba" that you describe is a narrative of nothing but poor Palestinian victims, and wicked jews.  When you damned well know that the act of Palestinians vacating lands was not monolithic and had mixed motivations, including "I'll leave so my Arab brothers can come in and exterminate the jews, then I'll get all my land back and then some."

How prevalent was this belief among the 700,000 who were displaced?

[DDD Dad 14251]