Israel/Palestine thread

Trolly, something about THIS particular conflict has you more involved, emotionally connected, passionate, committed, etc.

It's not total dead
It's not total injured
It's not total displaced

If it was we could easily see you spending hundreds of hours on a conflict like Syria.

For you to be this wrapped up, you need what I've explained as the underlying. In fact you want it to be, because it's the far better/safer explanation for you. The other explanation, you really don't want.

What's a "neutral" source, if any, on this topic, to avoid reading coverage which is so biased i have to double check all claims ? i skew heavily pro israel but the pro israel sources tend to be exaggerated even for me.

Is there any indian or japanese or in some way "alien" media covering the topic with some neutrality?

History tends to contextualize with time.

Nat Turner said to “kill all the whites” and the slave rebellion he led murdered men, women, and children indiscriminately. Why do you think today nobody regards him as a terrorist?

Noted.

But also I actually don't think it's personal.

I think the *people* (genuinely sorry Trolly, I'll exclude you) need a way to frame it for their moral compass, so that they can feel that unquestionably it's a right/wrong thing. In this case it's really easy to do that if "powerful white Israelis" are lobbing bombs on "weak dark Palestinians". And again this is just all over the intellectual discussion landscape on the web and in debates in academia. The "why" to certain conflicts getting billions of views and marches over others.

I think it's an interesting discussion, and we can watch it evolve across other conflicts to see if it holds up.

Btw this is why people tore down the hostage posters. The hostage posters mess with the powerful/powerless dynamic so much that you can't consolidate it in your mind. How can the powerless also be baby burning rapist kidnappers? It's hard to make that make sense if that's a key element to the analysis.

Times of Israel had the right wing celebrations on the front page today, outing them. That's usually a very good sign.

I've tried to talk about Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey all kinds of stuff at various times and basically no one responds. A fair amount of this really is that other people have an opposing view so conversations happen.

You are definitely in the minority. And I'd argue one of the more respected posters on here.

For the bolded, I would also hazard a guess that it's extremely risky and un-2024 to carry out discussions that might potentially be construed as Islamaphobic. Additionally, Arab on Arab violence is also just pretty "unsexy news". There's no "villain". Not in the way you can conjure one up here.

I think you are missing the link which at least in Italy and France has always been obvious, not sure about the USA, ie that being pro palestine since decades ago was a proxy of being "anti-system", "anti-capitalism", "anti american wars" and so on.

Nowadays it's Greta chanting "crush zionism" and stuff like that.

It's the same people, the strongest apologists of hamas are 90-95% of the cases to the left of normal leftist parties, use hammer and sickly symbols among themselves, are extremist "climate activists" (but exclusively because they see it as their best shot of defeating capitalism) and so on.

Ie they embrace the whole memeplex of neomarxist thought, it's a tribe and they hate everything that made the world a better place thanks to the west.

Thanks and I do think that yes, many people aren't eager to talk about how repressive Saudi Arabia is or how abhorrent the atrocities in Sudan are etc, but there literally is no one who wants to take SA's side in mass public executions or excuse the atrocities commited by the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan and a conversation of "this is horrible"..."yep" just dies off quickly.

The only recent change to that has been the addition of some people from very extreme rightwing places to that cohort, in the "rouge-brun", rossobruno fashion (horseshoe theory of extremes in english i think?), at least in europe.

Better for who?

I am ok taking the side of "this is horrible but it's proper for the USA to keep those countries allies in some form, the alternative is just worse.

Try saying "SA is a horrible place led my moral monsters who commit way too many crimes against humanity ... which is why we should invade them" if you want some spiced up conversation

For everyone , do you think Palestinians lived a better life than now in 1780?

I just wanted to see if your statement was intended to be as paternalistic as it sounded. Thanks for confirming.

What is this "white/dark" nonsense? The Israelis and Palestinians are the same damn people, genetically.

And yeah, SA is a horrible regime and they should stop with the mass executions and they should stop sawing reporters into pieces. I've never excused their behavior.

Thanks for the kind words.

I don't really understand the above. At what points wasn't the US supporting Israel?

none, which is the main reason that hamas & friends have been unable to fulfill their godly duty. so far.

dont forget KSA bombing and blockading Yemen with the help of the USA and causing like 100s of thousands of deaths.

Man Rambo IV was brutal wasn't it? I mean that was some Saving Private Ryan next level $hit right there

Anyway nah, conflicting accounts of a reservist student allegedly using skunk spray doesn't equate to the "IDF launch chemical weapons attack on US soil!!" hyperbole you thundered earlier and this is what I mean when I point out how disingenuous you are, as again being thick doesn't quite cover it. You remind me of what Father Merrin/Max Von Sydow says about the demon in The Exorcist.

You're very deliberate in how you couch your language. You were consciously aware how offensive your comparisons came across to other posters, some of them Jewish, yet went right ahead anyway. You're utterly contrary when it comes to Israel and Russia. So those along with many other reasons is why I simply don't take you seriously, ultimately.

Read the New York Times Article. Or don't? I'm ok with both.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world...

Could try WaPo too:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...

It takes the flavor of colonizer/colonized too, depends whom you ask

I'm saying that very common takes are some or a combo of:

1) Israel never makes it without the USA!
2) The USA supports Israel, which makes it a me issue
3) The USA should have never helped Israel

What I'm saying is #1 and #3 mean only 1 thing: The Arabs would have succeeded with their genocide in the 40's to 60's. On the tails of a Holocaust, we would have seen a second.

I am sometimes deliberate, actually often not. but I deliberately did not say this.

maybe stop lying?

No, because the US didn't particularly support Israel until after Britain and France withheld military deliveries in the wake of the Six Day War. In the 1956 Suez Crisis the US very distinctly opposed Israel along with Britain and France. In 1948 the Israelis did very well without any US help except a few volunteer mercenary pilots like Slick Goodlin, famous for failing to make the first supersonic flight in the Bell X-1 as a civilian test pilot because he demanded too much danger money, leaving the job to Chuck Yeager, a US Air Force officer under military orders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_G...

But I'm not lying
[url]https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=58426650&postcount=12367[/url]