Spork3245

That’s the thing, giving “full support” to either side in this forever-conflict only shows ignorance, IMO. Leaning towards one or the other is human nature, but understanding that there’s a huge grey area between that and full support is, (again) IMO, extremely important.

FWIW, if Netanyahu wasn’t able to hold power for as long as he has, I don’t believe it would’ve escalated to anything like the past several weeks. The man is just such a turd, and I believe that the majority of everything that is about to come and has come in the past month and few years is on his head.

Plus, low fps looks better anyway, more cinematic

I don’t disagree that it would be bad regardless of who won their (Israel’s) 2020 election, I just believe that it will be worse under Netanyahu. I think whatever it could have escalated to under another leader, with Netanyahu it will start at/around that level.

AMD is so unbelievably behind on RT that it’s kind of ridiculous at this point. A 7900 XTX is barely faster than a 10gb 3080 with RT on in this game. I cannot begin to imagine spending $1k or more on a GPU and it performing like a $700 GPU from over 3 years prior. Intel needs to get its shit together and release some higher-end competitors in the GPU market, maybe that’ll wake AMD up and get nVidia to price a little better.

Part of the problem with Israeli politics is that there’s actually too many “viable” political parties. There are currently 14 different parties that hold seats on Israel’s version of parliament (none of which fall under “independent”). It’s a strange dynamic when compared to our system that more-or-less only ever has two viable parties to choose from at any given time, as having too many also allows a minority to continually put the worst person in charge.

There’s a reason why only ~25% of votes went to Netanyahu in the last election and why his approval rating is currently sitting under 30%.

No, a diplomatic solution isn’t possible at this point, however, I’m talking about surgical strikes into areas vs a full on invasion. Netanyahu likely plans to salt the earth.

Netanyahu likely thinks blood will save his political career. As horrific as this has been, it’s likely to get worse.

Holy shit

I’m extremely concerned with how brutal this is going to be.

You wouldn’t notice a difference, but the 980 Pro 2tb is $130 right now, the 990 Pro 2tb no heatsink is $100

Ehhhh, the PLC/PLO was 100% a terrorist group until the 90s and weren't much better than Hamas currently is. The change in rhetoric mattered a lot but the past being so recent (like... months) also mattered there. I mean that I think speaking with the (future) Israelis directly could've been productive. We'll never know, though. Hamas has been around for over 25 years. They essentially were created because the PLO/PLC started to be accepting of Israel existing. Hamas was the "peace? No, fuck you, kill'em" group formed in response to any possibility of peace. Now PIL and Lions' Den are the ones claiming that Hamas are too soft, and they have 75% support in Gaza. I'm saying that the majority who live in Gaza support groups who do want that, which is based on independent polling. Is it wrong to say that the majority of republican voters have issues with trans people based on polling? I didn't say most Palestinians, I said many, most do want a two state solution as of 2023. But, again, their tactics are to target civilians and create fear and terror among innocence. I find it hard to justify any of that, just as I condemn Israel when they hit civilian targets. Were the IRA justified? Just like you can say that most Palestinians as a whole do not want all Jews dead, I can also say that most Israelis as a whole don't want all Palestinians dead nor do most Israelis want all of their land. No, of course he doesn't represent the avg American as even in 2016 Trump only received 45% of the votes, however, in states where Trump won by 60% or more, I'd say he likely represents the majority there, or, at the least, that the majority support and/or believe in his ideals. For example, if I were to go to West Virginia where Trump won around 70% of the vote, are you saying that Trump doesn't likely represent the average (average meaning not all but a majority of) West Virginians? Hamas certainly does not represent Palestinians as a whole, I am saying that the majority in Gaza support them by a very clear majority, and even more (an additional 15%) support two even more extreme parties. That is not an unconcerning statistic. These are polling numbers from July 2023, not percentages of votes from the election where Hamas won. I never said you can't have terrorist attacks during a war, but, there haven't been many times where Hamas has "fought back" in this war where it wasn't primarily against civilians. That's my point though, the name of the land isn't the issue, it's the borders that were drawn and the cultural/religious significance of the land to each group . If it was mandated to be a singular shared nation with democratically elected officials run by both groups called JewPales (side-note... holy fuck, this needs to happen. ONE STATE SOLUTION of JewPales BAYBAY) and it was peaceful, would anyone care that it's name wasn't Palestine or Israel? If Israel got up and left tomorrow, giving it all to the Palestinians, but they had to call it "Dead Sea Nation", are they really going to give a crap about the name? You're looking for something deeper in my "it's a name of a piece of land" when I absolutely assure you that's as deep as the statement goes. Jews actually never left and always lived in the area, even after the Christians took it over in the 500s and even after Caliph Umar took it in the 600s. They were an extreme minority and highly oppressed and often slaughtered for being Jews. It was in the late 1800s that they began to feel safer and start to move back to the area in meaningful numbers (not to mention the push from Europe to "put them back where they came from". They have just as much claim as anyone else to want and to live in that region and I think dismissing it is not okay. I think you can simultaneously recognize that Jews have a legitimate history and ancestry to that land, and that the Palestinians have a legitimate history and ancestry to that land -> putting one over the other goes back to my statement of creating arbitrary timeline limits that ultimately do nothing for the situation. The percentage of Jews in Palestine in 1914 was not less than 10%, it was around 15%, and by 1947 it was roughly 32%. It's also worth noting that the Muslim population in Palestine also rapidly grew during that time frame, going from 590k to 1.2m from 1922-1947. Both had an extreme influx of growth, Jews just more so due to the holocaust. Jews haven't been 10% or less of the population there since 1890. Working with each other for a peaceful resolution instead of being handed BS from the British seems somewhat reasonable to me? Especially with one side being 32% of the populace and the Palestinians being 59% (the remaining ~9% being Christian, who have also lived there for a very long time in not insignificant numbers). The proposed UN resolution was completely unfair and absolutely stupid in a lot of ways, but that doesn't mean it should've been "we outnumber them so let's try to kill them" vs attempting dialogue directly. Maybe it was attempted though, but history seems a bit murky (to say the least) whenever researching who started what/did what to who. It was implied early in this thread (not you, because you're absolutely not a trolling uneducated jackass like one person in particular ITT), and I'm not going to look for it (I don't have the mental energy to wade through 26 pages to find assclown commentary ), there was even some making jokes about dead Israelis early ITT. If we're going to separate Hamas from Palestinians, we should also separate Netanyahu from the avg Israeli. There's 14 different political parties holding seats in Israel, Netanyahu's got the majority to win in 2022, but it was only around 24% of the vote that went to his party. Netanyahu and his cronies want the land more than the average Israeli, and I don't believe that's unfair to state. The vast majority of attacks are against civilians and/or shooting rockets and hoping they explode, though. Again, I can understand the anger of a group like the IRA, but I would never sympathize with or condone the actions they take. My statement about a single-state solution is (extremely) hypothetical and to emphasis that if a peaceful solution was found that no one would care about the name of the country. Yes, this is what I'm talking about with the "excuse for civilian fall out" which is abhorrent and unacceptable. As I mentioned previously ITT, Hamas is integrated among the civilian population because it's ultimately a political party, and Israel uses that as an excuse for civilian casualties. Sure, to them it was always called Palestine, and before that it had a different name, and before that a different name. That's my point. You seem to be fusing my comments about name changes with ruling parties and/or culture, but that's not what I'm saying - if it were a co-existence style of government that had peace, the name wouldn't have mattered. Also, I'm not saying that only the Palestinians should've worked with the Jews, I'm saying that the Jews should have also worked with the Palestinians as well to find a peaceful solution. Palestine doesn't really have a military to defang, though. The issue is that Hamas is a political party with strong support, and that means the way to remove it isn't through sole military force. Education = defense = security = peace (and this doesn't just go for Palestine, it also goes for Israel and surrounding nations).

Just get gamepass

It's only recently (like this past year afaik) that the majority of Palestinians would prefer/be okay with a two-state solution.

I knew I got it from somewhere but I've been up since 2am

Yes. I believe that's before Palestinian leaders recognized Israel's right to exist, IIRC. I was talking about (and only about) the original resolution proposed by the UN/British, not later ones. Hamas has 60% support in Gaza, though, and 75% of Gazans support more extreme groups who also want all Jews dead. If you support the groups that have "all Jews must die" as their main platform, there's a high chance you probably also want dead Jews. I know you've brought up "well 70m+ Americans voted for Trump" but when did Trump as president have 60% approval ratings? You cannot easily separate the two in this instance when it comes to Gazans. The two aren't always separate issues among many Palestinians, especially those in Gaza, is the problem. But their guerilla tactics are targeting civilians (and primarily at that). That's the problem. I'd certainly argue that Trump represents the average republican. 60% approval rating = majority are represented by them and their actions as far as I'm concerned. I'm not, and just to reiterate I've made mention that the average person living in the West Bank is extremely different than the average person living in Gaza. Because the target was civilians and teens, hostages were taken. It was a terrorist attack, not a battle, not a war. More-so the current administration of turd, er, Netanyahu. I don't believe I said he isn't relevant, what I am saying is that he's a major problem and I cannot wait for him to get kicked out of power. What constitutes a "long time" given human life spans? I'd argue "about 70 years" is long-enough for both sides to work together in a functioning government vs one side needing to rule. (and to eliminate confusion, I'm talking about 1948 - somehow this keeps getting lost) They were there for roughly 70 years in both the areas the UN/British proposed to be Israel and Palestine prior to the resolution proposal. This is kinda semantics, as it was a name given to land mandated by British and Ottomans prior. There wasn't a functioning government run solely by Palestinians at this point to my knowledge. There's an argument that it was British land and Ottoman land prior, though. Palestine was not an independent country, it was just a swath of land with a name. Palestinians have wanted "all the land" until something like 20-ish years ago, though, and even then, it was not a clear majority willing to recognize Israel, let alone figure out a two state solution. We cannot pretend that Palestine has no culpability. Israel gave back multiple spots of land to Egypt in the past, places they won in the 6-day war. Palestine wasn't an independent or self-governing country. Thus, it was just a piece of land people were at. If it had been a single state solution with both parties being told to "form a government" would that have been an issue? Regardless you're misinterpreting my "name change" comment, as my point with the "it's just a name change" is that the issue was the proposed borders and seperation, not the name Israel or Palestine. If Tibetans were primarily targeting civilians they would have a lot less sympathy fwiw. It does when there were other viable options that stood on a platform of "let's try for peace". So you're saying that a group that is beaten down and forced to live in shit wouldn't believe in an extreme by seeing it as a necessity? If I were to go to Alabama or Mississippi I'd expect the majority of people I bump into to think that the US election was stolen and that Trump is still technically president. I believe you're referencing shots fired by soldiers into crowds during protests. That was absolutely terrible, but it's not the same thing as deliberately going door to door killing and kidnapping civilians, nor is it the same as going to a music festival and killing hundreds of teens/early-20-somethings. Both are bad as I mentioned, yes. Gaza and the West Bank are extremely different. Gaza tends to be much more "radical" in general afaik. When the governing bodies of the land are foreign (British, Ottomans) and there is no actual independent state, I must disagree. I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about the 1948 proposed UN/British resolution, but I guess not? I never said you did, it was a general statement. It's been implied a few times ITT by at least one person, but my main statement was a general point regarding sentiment I've seen elsewhere How does one eliminate a political party?

Probably worth noting that the PLO was a terrorist group committed to the end of Israel until about the late 1980s when Arafat took over.

They certainly used to but I'm unsure of their current stance on it, as they currently believe in Israel and it's right to exist.

Yes, I know, that's largely the problem, and it's also one of the (many) reasons why Hamas having 60% support in Gaza is extremely bad. The PLC in the West Bank at least recognizes Israel having a right to exist now and would seemingly be willing figure out a two state solution.

I assumed it was someone who's real username was banned

Looking at "Stuart" and "Silverman" makes me wonder if this was generated by AI