Israel and Palestine Conflict Heats Up

[Gestopft]

The Israeli government greenlighting more West Bank settlements, which is surely the path to peace and progress and not the exact kind of illegal actions that continue to make it seem clear that the Isreali government remains uninterested in peace and would rather continue to stoke divisions and conflict.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68490034

Oh good grief.

They. Don't. Want. A. Palestinian. State. I'm pretty sure they don't want a single secular state either. Both of the options left are really bad. The US can't break up with them fast enough.

- - - Updated - - -

I think this might be of interest for people claiming that their purpose is to stop Hamas 2.0.

Which at this point I have to assume doesn't include you, seeing as every time the radicalizing effect that this invasion could have on the Palestinian population is brought up to you, you go out of your way to engage with the substance, yet bring it up a couple pages later as some kinda of 'gotcha'. Seems like you don't actually mind the prospect of Palestinians continuing to get radicalized and violence continuing, and then "aw shucks, they can't give up hating us; guess they can't have any rights or freedoms yet (and we can keep taking their land)."

[Cthulhu 2020]

https://twitter.com/ytirawi/status/1765767223124037928

Another Israeli soldier, a Master Sergeant from the 9312 battalion posted pictures on 14 and 24 of December 2023 showing him taking food from an abandoned store and smoking shisha with other soldiers. (Hundreds of thousands of Gazans are starving, according to the UN) (15/18)

Ignoring the rest of the alleged atrocities in this entire thread, these four just look like people who would feel powerful walking around in military gear when their only opponents are women, children and men with sticks.

[Draco-Onis]

The first article is literally just the State Department spokesperson objectively describing reality. Israel is a sovereign nation and, to the reporters point, unless the US invades and functionally takes over the country, cannot tell the Israeli government what to do.

Telling sovereign countries what to do is our thing that's why this got laughed at, I hope I don't have to start listing the number of times we did tell sovereign countries what to do without invading.

Second is what I was asking for, thanks for that. Not remotely thrilled with the opaqueness there, at a bare minimum there needs to be transparency but it sure seems like the kind of thing tailor-made by Congress for this kind of abuse, eh? : P

Oh come now I think you understand my point, Biden is leaking about how bad the Israeli government is and how he wants them to be good boys blah blah. Meanwhile he is bending over backwards to make sure there are enough murder bombs dropping on Gaza. He got his hand caught in the cookie jar and it's not the first time, the rhetoric is hollow. That's like telling an alcoholic to quit drinking while making sure his fridge is stocked with vodka when you think no one is watching.

[tehdang]

Which at this point I have to assume doesn't include you, seeing as every time the radicalizing effect that this invasion could have on the Palestinian population is brought up to you, you go out of your way to engage with the substance, yet bring it up a couple pages later as some kinda of 'gotcha'.

First, the “radicalizing effect” of that is peanuts compared to the monster radicalizing effect of the prospect of peace with Israel, and the related massive effect of the international sentiment making Palestinians think that Israel may still capitulate in the face of terrorism. Both of those massively outweigh the proposed “Israel’s response is creating/will create a new Hamas.”

Secondly, I included that sentence to point out the hypocrisy. If you and others are focused on what I consider to be marginal effects, then you logically ought to also be concerned with people that parrot a Hamas reading of history. This lends credence to a terrorist narrative that the violence is working, and the propaganda is catching on, and if they keep this up, Israelis will capitulate or leave.

Seems like you don't actually mind the prospect of Palestinians continuing to get radicalized and violence continuing, and then "aw shucks, they can't give up hating us; guess they can't have any rights or freedoms yet (and we can keep taking their land)."

I think you and others are setting yourselves up for a lifetime of ignorance by focusing on very trivial stuff. You won’t ever get to the real obstacles to peace, and therefore cannot understand the steps towards achieving it. You’re unwitting (assuming good faith interchange) impediments to helpful progress by shortchanging Israel’s security to make no gains in a future peace process.

We’re at maybe five generations of Palestinians trying to make up for their fathers’ failure to expel the Jews from Palestine, and some people that ostensibly want peaceful coexistence are busy making the project seem attainable to the Palestinian street.

[Edge-]

Telling sovereign countries what to do is our thing that's why this got laughed at, I hope I don't have to start listing the number of times we did tell sovereign countries what to do without invading.

It is? What countries do we control outside our borders? Are they obligated to listen and comply?

Oh come now I think you understand my point, Biden is leaking about how bad the Israeli government is and how he wants them to be good boys blah blah. Meanwhile he is bending over backwards to make sure there are enough murder bombs dropping on Gaza. He got his hand caught in the cookie jar and it's not the first time, the rhetoric is hollow. That's like telling an alcoholic to quit drinking while making sure his fridge is stocked with vodka when you think no one is watching.

I get your point and continue to disagree with it because we live in an unsatisfying reality, and fundamentally disagree with the premise of your argument which is basically that genocide is the only thing that can get Joe Biden rock hard nowadays.

- - - Updated - - -

Ignoring the rest of the alleged atrocities in this entire thread, these four just look like people who would feel powerful walking around in military gear when their only opponents are women, children and men with sticks.

Honestly, those look less like active IDF soldiers and more like a weird mix of randos? Lack of patches and other gear, in addition to some of the age and weight issues and all, make me think this is an extra-military affair.

The Twitter dude posts later videos of actual IDF soldiers who are much better equipped with more modern gear. Not that the IDF isn't doing gross and awful things and their soldiers don't keep "accidentally" bragging about it on social media, but this remains why I warn about taking social media posts at face value without further investigation.

[NED funded]

I want you to reread this slowly, because I do not need to pull this apart: What is, apparently to you, a "non-starter" is a request to end the on-ground conflict, return all the hostages (and also a request for their own; this isn't an unreasonable request) and Israel to vacate. This is also including the stalling/prevention of food and power to enter Gaza, and WB is next on the chopping block; as I've said before, we're only now starting to enter the "forced famine" territory, and if you haven't experienced starvation/wasting you'd not REALLY appreciate how grueling a process is.

The response from Bibi to this was "delusional", even though the ceasefire offered TO Hamas was only 6 weeks, not 3 months with prospect for permanence. Let's consider this, the request for a short-term ceasefire, where hostages from both sides are returned, and Israel vacates. The Israeli solution is 6 weeks, only Hamas hostages are released, and Israel doesn't have to stop after the 6 weeks of ceasefire.

Which one was delusional? It can't be hostage release, this was, and still is, a request made by Israel, and it's fair, not delusional because it's requested by both sides. A ceasefire duration may be different in scope, but it's something Israel also wants (apparently) and willing to offer it, so that can't be a delusional option. Israel is left with calling the same request for hostages delusional, the request for food and supplies as delusional, or the request for Israel to leave is delusional. If you want to clarify that "HAMAS HAS TO SAY THEY LOST!" You are just looking for the singular trees in the forest. You aren't capable of REALLY appreciating the suffering WB and Gaza are CURRENTLY being inflicted, because you can't even see the obfuscation in such a ridiculously silly request by a genocidal maniac, with a government as bloodthirsty as he.

The fact your post boils down to the stupid equivalency of a schoolyard bully, I'd argue your world-view can't scope far beyond your very immediate life, and you can't REALLY empathize with the people, instead focusing entirely upon some weird childhood view of war as a "game".

You wouldn't be attempting to ratify what Netenyahu wants if you could ACTUALLY sympathise with the plights of the Palestinian people. You would NEED to be eating bird seed, waiting for the next help to arrive but knowing it could be the last attempt you make at existence. Anytime help could arrive, and holding out that hope as you see more and more of what's left of your land and peoples be mowed down, solely so people outside of your own existence can "haggle" human cost down to some win/lose affair. Even the acquaintances I have that I rarely communicate with due to being reprehensible human beings have begun slowly realising just how dire the situation is for the PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO EXIST THERE OR PERISH.

You can't possibly know, and you don't WANT to know, because you've diluted a long-conflict down to a fucking team sport, finding exactly the nuances you can solely to allow your own ego to leave unbruised. This thread is evidentiary of that in a lot more ways, not just yourself, but the zeitgeist is about Hamas vs Israel, yet the civilian death count has only just begun to expound. This WILL get worse, and if you can't see that because of some requirement of selecting a "foosball" team in this conflict I feel you aren't actually able to appreciate just how fucked this situation is.

You can be better, you don't HAVE to be reductionist to the degree to discount human suffering. I'll leave however you want to proceed up to you, but if we still have to go back to some hypothetical score-card to find out who "did it first" or who "is the most evil" then I feel this discussion isn't productive, since I WANT the focus to be on the emaciated in a warzone.

Yes dude you dont get to settle the terms of peace when you lost a war. And war is brutal that is why people avoid it, that is why we dont launch attacks on enemy territory and take hostages.

The point of getting a surrender is that it lets people bring justice. There are consequences to start a war and the losing has to bear them if anything the leadership. Japan didnt get to set the consequences of their surrender except maybe one thing to keep the emperor. The US basically wrote their constitution that they still use to this day. If Hamas had any shred of human decency theyd surrender and let the post war phase begin.

Also for the record, their negotiations is basically using random civilians they took hostage and refusing to return them bc unlike them Israel actually cares about human life.

[Elegiac]

Yes dude you dont get to settle the terms of peace when you lost a war. And war is brutal that is why people avoid it, that is why we dont launch attacks on enemy territory and take hostages.

The point of getting a surrender is that it lets people bring justice. There are consequences to start a war and the losing has to bear them if anything the leadership. Japan didnt get to set the consequences of their surrender except maybe one thing to keep the emperor. The US basically wrote their constitution that they still use to this day. If Hamas had any shred of human decency theyd surrender and let the post war phase begin.

Also for the record, their negotiations is basically using random civilians they took hostage and refusing to return them bc unlike them Israel actually cares about human life.

It's extremely dishonest to compare a war between two states with guerilla attacks against an apartheid colonial state by a people who have been consistently denied statehood.

[Gestopft]

First, the “radicalizing effect” of that is peanuts compared to the monster radicalizing effect of the prospect of peace with Israel, and the related massive effect of the international sentiment making Palestinians think that Israel may still capitulate in the face of terrorism. Both of those massively outweigh the proposed “Israel’s response is creating/will create a new Hamas.”

*citation needed*

If you and others are focused on what I consider to be marginal effects

It seems that according to you, everything but the impotent genocidal opinions of some of the Palestinian population seems to be marginal, seeing as "but Palestinians want to expel the Jews" is basically your only counter to anything at this point. And it appears that I need to remind you again: proper opinions are not a prerequisite for human rights.

I think you and others are setting yourselves up for a lifetime of ignorance by focusing on very trivial stuff.

Does "very trivial stuff" include the material conditions of the Palestinians before 10/7? Does "very trivial stuff" include the tens of thousands being killed right now? Does "very trivial stuff" include the mass destruction of homes and civic institutions in Gaza? Does "very trivial stuff" include the increased settler violence and still currently expanding settlements in the West Bank? Does "very trivial stuff" include the massive power differential between the parties involved and what that dynamic means?

Because it rather looks like in your book, the only thing that actually matters is that some Palestinians don't think Israel should exists- and thus they won't be deserving of human rights until they all unanimously agree that, actually, the country that was imposed on the region and is currently bombing their children and starving them and taking their land is something they should all get behind.

You won’t ever get to the real obstacles to peace, and therefore cannot understand the steps towards achieving it.

Ah yes, the "real obstacles to peace" have nothing to do with material conditions, only people's opinions. It's not more and more of the West Bank being stolen or Gaza being crushed under a boot. Those aren't "real obstacles to peace" the way "Palestinians don't like Israel" is. Sheesh.

And also, do I need to drag up all of the quotes coming out of the Israeli right wing these days about Palestinians and what their intentions are with the region? But ah yes, I forgot: if you're an Israeli, and you want sole control over the land from the river to the sea, and Palestinians expelled, you're still deserving of basic human rights and freedoms, but if you're a Palestinian and you want sole control over the land from the river to the sea and Jews expelled, then you don't deserve basic human rights and freedoms (and neither do your neighbors). Silly me for forgetting this.

You’re unwitting (assuming good faith interchange) impediments to helpful progress by shortchanging Israel’s security to make no gains in a future peace process.

Maybe Israel would have been better off leaving their troops by the Gaza border instead of sending them to the West Bank to steal more land, then. And to reiterate, I think Israeli security would improve if the conditions of the Palestinians did, but again maybe that's just me being silly for thinking that material conditions actually have an effect on peoples' outlooks....

Also, I noticed you didn't actually deny being fine with continued Palestinian suffering so long as you can blame it on them.

[NED funded]

It's extremely dishonest to compare a war between two states with guerilla attacks against an apartheid colonial state by a people who have been consistently denied statehood.

The overall point I am trying to make is that the decision to use violence to achieve your goal has consequences. Even if we assume Hamas was right in gunning down people in a music festival and taking hostages, that action was taken by the leadership under the assumption that there would be a reaction by the opposite party. And I am trying to make this clear, when you use violence, you are making the active choice to put people under your care in danger and those that you target your violence towards to.

That is the point of getting a surrender, to bring justice against the people that decided to engage in violence

[Elegiac]

The overall point I am trying to make is that the decision to use violence to achieve your goal has consequences.

And your "overall point" is also extremely dishonest because it deliberately ignores the context of this specific incidence of violence, that being decades of systemic violence against Palestinians.

But please do explain how justice involves taking oppression on the chin until your oppressors deign to treat you better.

[Endus]

The overall point I am trying to make is that the decision to use violence to achieve your goal has consequences.

Why does that logic only apply to the violence by Palestinians, and not the violence by Israelis?

Sure seems like you've picked a side and adjust your reasoning so they're the ones in the right no matter what they do.

Even if we assume Hamas was right in gunning down people in a music festival and taking hostages, that action was taken by the leadership under the assumption that there would be a reaction by the opposite party. And I am trying to make this clear, when you use violence, you are making the active choice to put people under your care in danger and those that you target your violence towards to.

Again, apply this to Israel, and that's why Oct 7th happened in the first place.

You're being entirely hypocritical and inconsistent. You don't care about the facts, you just want to present the Israelis as being in the "right" no matter what they do.

[Draco-Onis]

It is? What countries do we control outside our borders? Are they obligated to listen and comply?

You don't have to twist yourself into a pretzel to try to defend this, the concept is that the United States is respectful of national sovereignty and would never dream of telling other countries what to do. Do you honestly think that is remotely true?

I get your point and continue to disagree with it because we live in an unsatisfying reality, and fundamentally disagree with the premise of your argument which is basically that genocide is the only thing that can get Joe Biden rock hard nowadays.

No, of course not like most Zionists he thinks he is a good person who is doing the right thing which is letting Israel do whatever it wants. That is what makes it the most appalling Biden is a true believer.

[Edge-]

You don't have to twist yourself into a pretzel to try to defend this, the concept is that the United States is respectful of national sovereignty and would never dream of telling other countries what to do. Do you honestly think that is remotely true?

Dream of telling them/asking them? Or have the ability to force them to comply without sending in the troops? This is such a ludicrous comment and I'm struggling to believe we're still on this line of discussion. This is true when we're bombing a nation back to the stone age and installing our own favorable government of puppets (temporarily), and we can pressure nations to comply with requests, but the US cannot force another sovereign nation to do anything it does not want to do short of an invasion and overthrow of the government by US forces.

So when are we putting boots on the ground in Israel? When are we gonna start the missile strikes on IDF targets to force Israeli to comply?

No, of course not like most Zionists he thinks he is a good person who is doing the right thing which is letting Israel do whatever it wants. That is what makes it the most appalling Biden is a true believer.

I'm not intending this too shitty, but you really gotta keep your hyperfocus on Biden to the Biden thread, dude. This is verging on a silly notion like Biden Derangement Syndrome or something.

[PgStckr]

You don't have to twist yourself into a pretzel to try to defend this, the concept is that the United States is respectful of national sovereignty and would never dream of telling other countries what to do. Do you honestly think that is remotely true?

Of course it's true!
Iraqi will agree, and so will Serbs!

[Endus]

You don't have to twist yourself into a pretzel to try to defend this, the concept is that the United States is respectful of national sovereignty and would never dream of telling other countries what to do. Do you honestly think that is remotely true?

While I agree the USA shouldn't be dictating to other countries what to do, he could respond with alacrity to their actions in terms of how the USA provides aid or support or trade to that nation. Cutting them off as a response to them committing a genocide isn't "dictating" terms to Israel.

[tehdang]

*citation needed*

I'm not implying that I'm appealing to authority here. These are my opinions, interpretations, and conclusions, drawn from the evidence of history, and I'm doing my best to explain them succinctly but completely.

It seems that according to you, everything but the impotent genocidal opinions of some of the Palestinian population seems to be marginal, seeing as "but Palestinians want to expel the Jews" is basically your only counter to anything at this point. And it appears that I need to remind you again: proper opinions are not a prerequisite for human rights.

How are you getting at this? I'm only seeking to answer you on "I have to assume doesn't include you" and "bring it up a couple pages later as a "gotcha." It's only my answer to your need for clarification, not my "counter to anything at this point." Re-read your last post from the vantage point of someone that thinks you're way off on the wrong track.

Human rights can be a lot of things and I don't know your interpretation of them to this situation. I think, and I believe you know this, that the regular war and terrorism is an argument for no path towards statehood in the intermediate term, but the ultimate goal is a peaceful two-state solution. The barriers to peace right now I've already expressed over maybe three prior posts.

Does "very trivial stuff" include the material conditions of the Palestinians before 10/7? Does "very trivial stuff" include the tens of thousands being killed right now? Does "very trivial stuff" include the mass destruction of homes and civic institutions in Gaza? Does "very trivial stuff" include the increased settler violence and still currently expanding settlements in the West Bank? Does "very trivial stuff" include the massive power differential between the parties involved and what that dynamic means?

Because it rather looks like in your book, the only thing that actually matters is that some Palestinians don't think Israel should exists- and thus they won't be deserving of human rights until they all unanimously agree that, actually, the country that was imposed on the region and is currently bombing their children and starving them and taking their land is something they should all get behind.

Now you're dragging it onto the world of stuff I might consider trivial and not trivial. Let's drill down to the major one. Israel's reaction to the October 7th massacre, which I've argued is not a genocide, and the collateral damage to civilians is not indiscriminate and has been conducted lawfully with respect to legitimate targets, is not and will not be a major instigation of future terrorist organizations and future terrorism. It is dwarfed by Israel's continued existence challenging an interpretation of Islamist religious war and victory. It is dwarfed by peace plans with Israel instigating violence targeted at destroying the peace process (Second Intifada after Camp David, arguably October 7th after and during the Abraham accords).

The terrorism and the appeal of voting for terrorist orgs is not due to the effects of Israel's response to terrorism, but rather it's refusal to disintegrate or leave.

Ah yes, the "real obstacles to peace" have nothing to do with material conditions, only people's opinions. It's not more and more of the West Bank being stolen or Gaza being crushed under a boot. Those aren't "real obstacles to peace" the way "Palestinians don't like Israel" is. Sheesh.

And also, do I need to drag up all of the quotes coming out of the Israeli right wing these days about Palestinians and what their intentions are with the region? But ah yes, I forgot: if you're an Israeli, and you want sole control over the land from the river to the sea, and Palestinians expelled, you're still deserving of basic human rights and freedoms, but if you're a Palestinian and you want sole control over the land from the river to the sea and Jews expelled, then you don't deserve basic human rights and freedoms (and neither do your neighbors). Silly me for forgetting this.

I never said it would be easy for you to accept it. But terrorism and conquering wars predates West Bank settlements. Hell, it predates and continued during the Transjordan parceling of mandatory Palestine. This isn't a case of "Less than content Palestinians about partition, but not resorting to terrorism, but you know Israel's response after October 7th really got the terrorism going." Palestinians could've had a state at several intervals of history, and it was the desire for more and a no-Israel solution that kept it from happening.

Maybe Israel would have been better off leaving their troops by the Gaza border instead of sending them to the West Bank to steal more land, then. And to reiterate, I think Israeli security would improve if the conditions of the Palestinians did, but again maybe that's just me being silly for thinking that material conditions actually have an effect on peoples' outlooks....

Also, I noticed you didn't actually deny being fine with continued Palestinian suffering so long as you can blame it on them.

If we put to one side the argument on what is the biggest barrier to a two-state peaceful solution and whether Israel's actions matter a great deal to a future Hamas clone, then I can agree with you that the political process of increasing settlements is a bad thing that Israel is currently doing, and the far-right of Israel bears the blame for it. Any future peace plan will involve dismantling some of them, like *ahem* Israel already did in Gaza to the extent of literally arresting and forcibly removing settlers. The right-wing settler movement is deceiving themselves that they're creating permanent Israeli state territory.

I've spoken on Palestinian suffering and sorrow for it multiple times in this thread. I'll point out to you the main responses: People want to not believe it, because I lay so much of the "why they are suffering" on Hamas. People also have a very, very rough time seeing proposed solutions that they disagree with as being aimed at alleviating the suffering. So you've got a really cynical worldview here, but you wouldn't be the only one. Every political topic always gets some flavor of "B disagrees with me on how to fix A, therefore B is uncaring and unsympathetic regarding A."

[Specialka]

And your "overall point" is also extremely dishonest because it deliberately ignores the context of this specific incidence of violence, that being decades of systemic violence against Palestinians.

But please do explain how justice involves taking oppression on the chin until your oppressors deign to treat you better.

You heard it here, it is okay to go on indiscriminate killings when you are oppressed.

[Endus]

You heard it here, it is okay to go on indiscriminate killings when you are oppressed.

If you're just going to straight up ignore the pointing to "context", then it's clear you're not engaging honestly.

Would it be okay for a parent visiting a school to shoot back at a school shooter who'd opened up on the students? Or would that be "indiscriminate killing" in your view? Since apparently, in your view, context doesn't matter.

[Draco-Onis]

Dream of telling them/asking them? Or have the ability to force them to comply without sending in the troops? This is such a ludicrous comment and I'm struggling to believe we're still on this line of discussion. This is true when we're bombing a nation back to the stone age and installing our own favorable government of puppets (temporarily), and we can pressure nations to comply with requests, but the US cannot force another sovereign nation to do anything it does not want to do short of an invasion and overthrow of the government by US forces.

So when are we putting boots on the ground in Israel? When are we gonna start the missile strikes on IDF targets to force Israeli to comply?

Explain how past presidents managed to make Israel to stop then? did they have new magical powers that Biden doesn't have? all the running around he is doing getting them money that's leverage he could use to do things like I don't know have them let aid go into Gaza so he doesn't have to air drop it.

I'm not intending this too shitty, but you really gotta keep your hyperfocus on Biden to the Biden thread, dude. This is verging on a silly notion like Biden Derangement Syndrome or something.

When all else fails use the Fox news defense but we can continue this on the Biden thread if you feel more comfortable.

[Specialka]

If you're just going to straight up ignore the pointing to "context", then it's clear you're not engaging honestly.

Would it be okay for a parent visiting a school to shoot back at a school shooter who'd opened up on the students? Or would that be "indiscriminate killing" in your view? Since apparently, in your view, context doesn't matter.

So you do agree it is okay to go on indiscriminate killings ? I mean go on targeted attacks on military personal would be a thing but killings civilians ?

And you talking about contexte ? Lawl, pot / kettle, you know the drill.