Israel/Palestine thread
Think this merits its own thread...
Discuss my fellow 2+2ers..
AM YISRAEL CHAI.
[QUOTE=Crossnerd]Edit: RULES FOR THIS THREAD
Posting guidelines for Politics and Soci...
These are our baselines. We're not reinventing the wheel here. If you aren't sure if something is acceptable to post, its better to ask first. If you think someone is posting something that violates the above guidelines, please report it or PM me rather than responding in kind.
To reiterate some of the points:
1. No personal attacks. This is a broad instruction, but, in general, we want to focus on attacking an argument rather than the poster making it. It is fine to say a post is antisemitic; it is not okay to call someone an antisemite over and over. If you believe someone is making antisemitic posts, report them or PM me. The same goes for calling people "baby killers" and "genocide lovers". You are allowed to argue that an action supports genocide or that the consequences of certain policies results in the death of children, but we are no longer going to be speaking to one another's intentions. It is not productive to the conversation and doesn't further any debate.
2. Racist posts and other bigoted statements that target a particular group or individuals of such groups with derogatory comments are not allowed. This should not need further explanation.
3. Graphic Images need to be in spoilers with a trigger warning.
4. Wishing Harm on other posters will result in an immediate timeout.
5. Genocidal statements such as "Kill 'em all" etc, are no longer permissible in the thread.
If anyone has any questions about the above, please PM me. I don't want a discussion about the rules to derail the content of this thread. If anything needs clarifying, I will do that in this thread.
Please be aware this thread is strictly moderated[/quote]
A group that cannot manage a few days of truce is never going to manage anything longer. All that is is time to rebuild for the next push.
That isn't strategy, that's suicide.
The other issue is there isn't even one Hamas. It's like 6 factions. You can agree with some guys and have the others totally disobey it. This isn't a government, which is part of the problem (and governments are hard enough to strike agreements with).
100m South Americans will not come to the USA and the only reason USA would have problems of that order if they did is because of racist *******s who would try to do civil war or something. Another 100 million people in the USA and the population density would still be a sixth of Germany's.
How many people came this year?
I don't think a climate change /water crisis scenario would be too far fetched for 20-50m migrants in a year in our lifetime. Back to back years of that would be a pretty big boom.
yes. bombing places is bad. yes, the US nuking Japanese cities and killing civilians was bad.
All war is bad, so this isn't really saying anything. And the US atomic bombings in 1945 ended the Second World War -- the worst thing that ever happened in human history -- at a stroke, giving the Emperor a unique and unanswerable reason to do the unthinkable and surrender, and forestalled an Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands which would have cost probably 2 million mostly Japanese lives. So there's that. The conventional incendiary raid on Tokyo on the night of 9-10 March 1945 killed more people than either of the atomic bombings (probably more than both put together, in terms of immediate deaths) and is largely forgotten. But all warfare is psychological and the atomic bombings, demonstrating that a single American aircraft could destroy a city, and that Japan's defences could not prevent this, had a large psychological effect, not least on the Emperor.
So the correct play in WW2 was to ask the Allies to stop creating Japanese refugees via a ceasefire? Or German refugees via a ceasefire? Because the allies created millions and millions of refugees.
What I'm asking is once the damage is done, the population is displaced, and there is no going back in the short to medium term. What should the people of earth do with refugees?
Remove all borders, remove all visa requirements and let people (refugees or otherwise) choose where they're going to live.
How many people came this year?
I don't think a climate change /water crisis scenario would be too far fetched for 20-50m migrants in a year in our lifetime. Back to back years of that would be a pretty big boom.
Could happen and it would have a significant impact if it did. Fairly large migration would be good for the USA. At some level it would be enough that it would cause more problems than benefits. So far immigration has been limited by demand for immigrants. During the recession/financial crisis immigration was net negative with Mexico because there wasn't work here.
Regardless, even if conditions are so universally bad in Central and South America that so many people want to come to the USA that it would cause the standard of living in the USA to drop, they should still be allowed to come.
Could happen and it would have a significant impact if it did. Fairly large migration would be good for the USA. At some level it would be enough that it would cause more problems than benefits. So far immigration has been limited by demand for immigrants. During the recession/financial crisis immigration was net negative with Mexico because there wasn't work here.
Regardless, even if conditions are so universally bad in Central and Sout
So largely, I agree with you. I'll make my post later after work to arrive at where I was going (to the relief of everyone I'm sure).
Like 100m South Americans busting into the USA if climate change gets real bad is a hell of a concept to consider.
You're sounding like a notorious poster used by the Leave campaign in the Brexit debate implying that 80M Turkish people would immediately come to the UK:
But seeing as how the US is one of the largest producers of CO2 it probably owes climate change refugees a home.
The US could easily cope with another 100M people.
So largely, I agree with you. I'll make my post later after work to arrive at where I was going (to the relief of everyone I'm sure).
Cool. I will add, I'm under no illusion that this kind of thing will ever happen at least not for a long long long time. Or maybe an apocalypse will erase borders.
So largely, I agree with you. I'll make my post later after work to arrive at where I was going (to the relief of everyone I'm sure).
inb4 the "it's funny you say that while you yourself participate in society.."/"the jews experienced this once so you have to greenlight a blank check to genocide" anticlimatic gotcha.
this is the standard Israeli double tap. after bombing a building they wait for the emergency crews to show up and then hit it again.
Eventually it will be me and rakafi
They're trying to weaken them to the point that one of their "rivals" replaces them, to the betterment (I see the irony) of the lives of all Gazans on a much much longer timeline (obviously that's a very secondary goal for Israel). And then it's a massive deradicalization effort with the likes of the Saudis etc assisting. Remember this is about killing the Zionists, and making lots of money in the current model. It's not about improving the
I can sympathize with wanting to put a total end to the threat that hamas poses. I just cant envision a realistic scenario of that happening regardless of the force used but I am not as educated as you are on the subject.
I can sympathize with wanting to put a total end to the threat that hamas poses. I just cant envision a realistic scenario of that happening regardless of the force used but I am not as educated as you are on the subject.
if you want to end the threat of Hamas, its pretty simple. just end the occupation. ofc, that is as feasible as asking Putin to withdraw from Ukraine.
By occupation do you mean the existence of the ethnostate of Israel? Because that is not happening. Is that Hamas's non negotiable demand?
no. Hamas has offered a long term cease fire at the 1967 borders. they have offered this multiple times.
and by occupation, I mean the occupation recognized by international law. this is why I get kinda upset in this thread. I have explained this many times and linked to the facts many times. I know that you are a good faith poster so I wont insult you. but it gets kind of infuriating to repeatedly link to the same sources to show the same thing.
By occupation do you mean the existence of the ethnostate of Israel? Because that is not happening. Is that Hamas's non negotiable demand?
The most Hamas has ever alleged offered was 1967 borders for a ten year truce without recognizing Israel or giving up its vows to erase Israel from the map.
The parties involved, the PLO leadership included, didn’t think Hamas was serious anyway. Only the most naive thought Hamas was going to stop shooting once they got 1967 borders.
no. Hamas has offered a long term cease fire at the 1967 borders. they have offered this multiple times.
and by occupation, I mean the occupation recognized by international law. this is why I get kinda upset in this thread. I have explained this many times and linked to the facts many times. I know that you are a good faith poster so I wont insult you. but it gets kind of infuriating to repeatedly link to the same sources to show the
So is that true it's a 10 year truce and they still insist their ultimate goal is to have Israel no longer exist? If so it's a bit of a non starter.
So is that true it's a 10 year truce and they still insist their ultimate goal is to have Israel no longer exist? If so it's a bit of a non starter.
The from the river to the sea chant means the annihilation of Israel. Period
All the people in the thread that justify alternative meanings are disingenuous
