Israel/Palestine thread

I am not saying they will be supplying troops. I'm not sure who will. As i previously said m aybe an alliance of troops

Or are you saying no troops but continue controlling the border like they have? With a border kill zone?

Saudis think Hamas is a nuisance but they can’t care less and may actually benefit from Israelis taking the brunt of Iran (and Houthis’😉 attention.

Just stop with the fantasy that SA will send troops to help PA occupy Gaza. They have neither the willingness nor capability.

Israel will have to provide the financial support, weapons, and possibly the troops to support PA security in Gaza.

And the best you gonna get out of Arab states is tacit acknowledgment that de facto Israeli occupation of Gaza, albeit outsourced to PA, is the least bad option.

Syrians can’t care less. Hizbollah is too busy trying to figure out just what its long term goal in Lebanon is. Jordanians pay lip service but want even less to do with Palestinians than the Israelis. Egypt is happy to just pretend it’s a spatial void beyond the Sinai where nothing exists and nothing shall escape. Saudi Arabia doesn’t want to antagonize its Wahhabi factions but doesn’t want to piss Israel and US off either so it will do absolutely nothing and they’ve said as much.

I see no option but a 2 state solution. I think that Saudi Arabia will not deal with Israel while IDF forces are occupying Gaza as it would look like Israel's version of Iraq/Afghanistan. This means someone else, most likely PA, will have to police Gaza. I think PA stands 0 chance of removing Hamas.

Only option is to give Hamas political representation (which is currently a nonstarter for Israel) under the condition that Hamas acknowledges Israel's right to exist (which is currently a nonstarter for Hamas). This would force out the more extreme elements of Hamas and force the more moderate elements to work with PA/Fatah or be removed again. That will take a lot of time, it will result in a lot of violence, but it's the only way.

Hamas has made it clear it will never accept that condition. It’s not the first time this conversation is happening. It’s not even the second time (even if you count all the conversations in the 2006-2008 period as just once)

Part of the problem is branding. They live and die by the Jihad now. They can’t become moderate for the same reasons the Dollar General cannot become a luxury retailer. It’s simply antithetical to their raison d’être.

Put differently, there is no moderate element of Hamas to negotiate with. At best, there isn’t enough of them to control Hamas. Part of the issue is the moderates are pretty much the nonbelievers and they are sitting pretty in Doha while the true believers like Sinwar continued to radicalize the rank and file of Hamas.

Hamas is not monolithic. Oct 7 probably exacerbated this greatly, particularly between the military and political wings.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/01/28/...

their plan all along

Netenyahu says no. He says it's unrealistic. Would kill saudi deal. Probably kills us aid

But it was "their plan all along "

Not sure who their is, unless you mean right wing radicals that aren't part of the government

Coffee&toast has been permabanned as an alias account

Because they want to support their Arab Muslim brothers?

Why should the US, UK, Italy and Australia be "on the hook" for it?

Because they're begging the US and its allies to continue giving them money before they become insolvent.

They may already give them some money, you're correct I don't know if they do or not. But I meant why aren't they offering to make up the gap that the other countries are now leaving? I don't think Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, etc are hurting for cash.

Does anyone else on this forum (or in the world) believe that the border wall has anything to do with most Mexicans/Central Americans being Catholic?

We do currently have a Catholic president, and growing up Catholic myself I certainly never suffered from any discrimination based on religion.

I agree that setting up a Jewish homeland would have been a non-starter (unless possibly in Alaska, which was not yet a state), but your linking it to wanting to keep out Catholics is ridiculous.

I have pointed out lies he has said many times. Nothing is ever done about it. Among these lies are horrible dishonest attacks on other forum members, accusing them of supporting murder of children. Yet when I make one sarcastic speculative allegation about what he supports doing to children, I'm given a temp-ban.

When anyone attempts to 'engage' him on his lies, they are met either with a flat denial with no explanation or with a string of ad hominem insults.

You can't be 'fact checker' on every topic, but you were on a topic just a few days ago. When 90% of forum member have accused a single poster of lying over and over again, maybe that's one of the rare instances in which you should try to check the facts. It's really farcical trying to pretend that he hasn't been given leeway that no other poster seems to be given. It's an insult to the intelligence of every other member of the forum, and no one is falling for it.

Innocent babies are, by the hundreds if not thousands, being killed in Gaza by Israeli bombing operations. The Israeli government knows this. They order the bombing operations anyway. If they put the lives of those babies above the destruction of Hamas, they would say "it would be best from a killing of Hamas personnel perspective to continue the bombings even though more babies will be killed, but we just can't morally do that, so we will stop the bombings and figure out another way to deal with Hamas."

But of course they havent done that. They made a deliberate decison to bomb targets they knew would kill civilians and babies. The chose to launch those attacks that they knew would kill babies. When you target a building with civilians and babies in it, even if there is also Hamas in it, you are, de facto, targeting babies.

So if the Israeli government is targeting babies, and another country or person says they support Israel's operations, are they not, in fact, supporting the killing of babies? And since the building the babies are in are specifically targeted by the Israeli Air Force (those arent all accidental errant ordnance) then are they not, in fact, murdering babies?

Now, just to be clear, that is NOT my personal opinion, nor do I think it is the most likely conclusion or description of the situation. But what, exactly, in that "logic chain" (if you can call that) is a lie versus one interpretation of the facts? If someone expresses that opinion, what exactly is a mod to take action on?

That's why I stated that is on other posters to point out why they think that chain of thought is in error. And there are all sorts of ways to do that. But in the end, you end up with two diametrically opposed opinions.

One: locations with babies are being deliberately targeted by Israeli forces; that is murder; Israelcould stop killing babies anytime they want, but they dont. Therefore anyone country or person who supports Israels war effort by definition supports murdering babies.

Two: Israel has every right to attack Hamas wherever they are; they dont want to kill babies, but feel that it is an acceptable amount of collateral damage necessary to destroy Hamas. So tragic as it is, it must be done because there is no other way to destroy Hamas. Throughout history, civilians are killed in war. It's unavoidable, but the alternatives are worse. So one can support Israel's war effort without supporting the killing of babies, since the civilian deaths are a consequence of Hamas' own actions.

Now, those are two completely different interpretations of the facts on the ground. Just the "is it genocide or not" debate shows how the world is split on this issue. Each side needs to articulate their thoughts and reasoning as to why their interpretation is correct and the other wrong. This isnt a question the mods will decide.

it's a lie in a crucial part: that there is another way Israel can guarantee the extermination of Hamas (or another way which has a higher probability of success). It is a lie in the part where "they didnt bother trying figuring out alternative ways". They obviously have , and ended up with the conclusion there is no other way.

We have asked repeatedly how the people who crtiticize israeli actions would otherwise annihilate hamas. Afaik they never answer that.

Probably the idea is that those people don't consider Hamas somethign that Israel (and we in the west) have a moral duty to eliminate from the face of earth.

Saying someone supports killing children is not the same as saying someone supports an action even if the consequence of that action is going to lead to children being killed.

It's possible to support an action without supporting every consequence of that action.

cant believe we are rehashing this. browser asked that I tone down the rhetoric and I have done so. and I have deliberately avoided the baby issue.

anyway, in this situation I dont think you can separate the consequences. the dead babies are a direct and obv result of the bombs. I go further and believe, as does much of the world, that the killing of children is the actual intent of the bombing.

Every timr i put someone on ignore ...

I must have good taste

Was the burying in pigs blood deemed not to be a deterrent?

source for "much of the world believes killing palestian children is the actual intent of the bombing"?

Absolutely ridiculous. Even if "most of the world" did believe that it doesn't mean everyone does though. Yet another logic fail in that argument.

But it is also very possible that a consequence could be the reason that you do not support an action that you would otherwise support. In other words, the fact that someone is ignoring the bad consequence of an action that would be justified if it didn't result in that consequence, could be justification for calling that ignorer wrong or even evil. If Victor didn't go past what I wrote in that previous sentence he would get a lot more support.

Bluegrass you support the hostages never coming home ever because you dont support israel doing everything in their power to support hamas
Therefore you are an antisemite

That's how you're logic works right

really?

why does everyone need to believe it? I think the logic fails is yours.