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]
Israel sucks but I don't think they can compete in the baby killing category of NK. But Israel is killing with military power when they have an option not to. NK does it because they are dumb as ****ing rocks and people end up starving while being barricaded.
what? israel is killing hamas, a terrorist foreign organization which repeatedly for many years waged violence against israel civilians completly unprovoked, and with it some civilians hamas uses as meat shields.
NK kills its own citizens for the crime of not being useful to the dictator
Question for this thread going into the weekend.
if 20k Israelis died Oct 7th, would we be 100% cool with what's happening right now? Would that be all that was missing?
We've asked this before, I just want to check in to see if that's the criteria for deciding genocide. How many of your own died BEFORE you respond. Because based on recent history, this seems to be the message I'm getting.
That's not how this works
That's not how any of this works
debunking some sloppy iof propaganda. helpful because who has the time to sift through all this besides guys who stream for like 12 hours per day, which is exactly why they do it
it's almost as if he has zero interest in a good-faith discussion here
Again, it's weird that you don't just look up what "genocide" means for yourself.
No I fully get it.
For those of us who don't believe it's genocide (because it isn't), the only thing that matters is the optics in the powerful/powerless dynamic.
if 20k+ Israeli died, largely civilian, there would be a pound of flesh that would be deemed acceptable by the average person. The world would have significantly more tolerance towards the situation.
Take it a step further if you want to convince yourself.
500k dead Israelis, 30k dead Gazans.
You think a single court out there is trying to figure out if the 30k is genocide today?
Optics matter here guys.
No I fully get it.
For those of us who don't believe it's genocide (because it isn't), the only thing that matters is the optics in the powerful/powerless dynamic.
if 20k+ Israeli died, largely civilian, there would be a pound of flesh that would be deemed acceptable by the average person. The world would have significantly more tolerance towards the situation.
eye for an eye vengeance murdering civilians including children should never be deemed acceptable by the average person. it's disgusting that anyone thinks that.
The battles have been going on for almost 100 years. Stop lying and making it seem like otherwise
Also the other countries have wanted to destroy Israel and have been doing antisemitic things for 100 years. That shouldn’t be ignored
eye for an eye vengeance murdering civilians including children should never be deemed acceptable by the average person. it's disgusting that anyone thinks that.
it's not eye for an eye, it's how much collateral damage you accept for the absolutely morally rightful attempt to combat terrorists which already achieved X. The bigger the X the more collateral damage normal people would accept.
Think it this way, if hamas had managed to use a nuclear bomb (say stolen from Israel itself) on Tel Aviv, people wouldn't consider 15-20k civilians dead as collateral damage in the attempt to eradicate hamas a large number.
Fact is, Hamas being able to "only" kill 1200 on 10 7 shouldn't matter in the slightest. Attempts to eradicate it in full are completly reasonable from the day they fired the first rocket against Israeli civilians.
And anyone who doesn't have as the first priority above all in the region the complete eradication of all anti-Israel terror is part of the problem not of the solution
I sense some of you are confusing how the world works, with how you think it should work
From twitter:
The same people who told you Rafah could not be evacuated, that it would be a genocide, and that everyone would starve to death are now upset that Rafah was evacuated with relative ease.
Pentagon: Over 1 million pounds of aid reaches Gaza via U.S. pier
it's not eye for an eye, it's how much collateral damage you accept for the absolutely morally rightful attempt to combat terrorists which already achieved X. The bigger the X the more collateral damage normal people would accept.
Think it this way, if hamas had managed to use a nuclear bomb (say stolen from Israel itself) on Tel Aviv, people wouldn't consider 15-20k civilians dead as collateral damage in the attempt to eradicate hamas a lar
How does the fact that Israel has supported Hamas change your calculus?
I dont see how thay would make a difference. If bibi wants to empower hamas for some palestinian revolt against hamas or to give credence to the idea of going in and wiping them out, then it certainly worked in his favor.
Its like determining the guilt of the creator of How to catch a predator when he gets a fake underage girl to take her panties off to catch the bad guy.
eye for an eye vengeance murdering civilians including children should never be deemed acceptable by the average person. it's disgusting that anyone thinks that.
Its not even an eye for an eye, its gouging out the eyes of a random population of innocents and evil doers to prevent them from taking out your eye.
Are we REALLY going to do this again?
In the last 2 months Egypt went from most trusted regional ally to potentially looking like they've had people profiting heavily from smuggling arms into Gaza, and being caught sabotaging the hostage deal. TODAY relationships with Egypt don't look great. All that managed to swing in a few months.
If ages ago Hamas was the best horse of a bad group of horses to bet on, that has literally zero to do with now (Or Oct 7th). NOW, Hamas are another tentacle on the Iran-proxy octopus. We don't have to delve into this oversimplification completely devoid of real world power and political dynamics. Decades gonna decade, the world moved on.
What is the long game if/when saving the hostages no longer seems like a reasonably obtainable objective or failing to kneecap hamas to prevent them from ever assimilating enough to cause another similar attack?
Is Israel interested in widening this war with Iran over this and completely changing the landscape of the ME or do things just fizzle out?
What is the long game if/when saving the hostages no longer seems like a reasonably obtainable objective or failing to kneecap hamas to prevent them from ever assimilating enough to cause another similar attack?
Is Israel interested in widening this war with Iran over this and completely changing the landscape of the ME or do things just fizzle out?
Lebanon seems like the most obvious next target.
What is the long game if/when saving the hostages no longer seems like a reasonably obtainable objective or failing to kneecap hamas to prevent them from ever assimilating enough to cause another similar attack?
Is Israel interested in widening this war with Iran over this and completely changing the landscape of the ME or do things just fizzle out?
Hezbollah, which is part of the government of Lebanon, is constantly attacking northern Israel, while promising Israel's destruction. So Israel is basically at war with Lebanon right now. I am guessing dealing with the border state constantly attacking them while calling for their destruction is the priority.
Iran is busy beating up Iranian protestors calling for reforms (while western leftists who pretend to care about such things are remarkably agnostic); so they seem too pre-occupied to be instigating any direct confrontations with Israel at the moment.
Are we REALLY going to do this again?
In the last 2 months Egypt went from most trusted regional ally to potentially looking like they've had people profiting heavily from smuggling arms into Gaza, and being caught sabotaging the hostage deal. TODAY relationships with Egypt don't look great. All that managed to swing in a few months.
Is this what you think the situation is-- that Israel aided Hamas ages ago and that was it?
Iran is busy beating up Iranian protestors calling for reforms (while western leftists who pretend to care about such things are remarkably agnostic); so they seem too pre-occupied to be instigating any direct confrontations with Israel at the moment.
I get lebanon being the current annoyance and that would certianly escalate first. But im am curious on some thoughts on how far this potentially could go and how far those in charge would be willing to take it. All major wars start out with a small kerfuffle.
