Gaza/Israel Update (04/02): Israeli airstrike kills foreign workers of World Central Kitchen (Chef José Andrés food aid charity)

[SuperSpreader]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

Consider those tribes the Hamas of their day, while other tribes got hoodwinked with alliances and peace treaties.

 

Hamas is more like Cartels 

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, SuperSpreader said:

 

Hamas is more like Cartels 

 

As I said in an earlier post, they are half government, half gang, so you're right, but political structures are much more complicated today than in old times. But in broad strokes the point remains: they are fighting, brutally, for the Palestinian people, just like some tribes of the Native Americans did against the white colonialists for the same reason. In both cases it's horrific and sucks but it's a response to something, not taking the initiative.

[SuperSpreader]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

As I said in an earlier post, they are half government, half gang, so you're right, but political structures are much more complicated today than in old times. But in broad strokes the point remains: they are fighting, brutally, for the Palestinian people, just like some tribes of the Native Americans did against the white colonialists for the same reason. In both cases it's horrific and sucks but it's a response to something, not taking the initiative.

 

I'm thinking about Mexican cartels that brutalize Mexicans and are funded by US addicts and American gun manufacturers while the poor look up to them. Just like Hamas does and how they are funded by Iran. 

[Bacon]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

Let me ask a question that is not rhetorical to the board at large: when it comes to China and Tibet, we side with Tibet. When it comes to Azerbaijan and the Armenians in N-K in Azerbaijan, we side with the Armenians. When it comes to white colonialists from Europe and Native Americans, we side with the Native Americans. When it comes to white South Africans and black South Africans in their apartheid state, we side with the black South Africans. In each of these cases, the oppressed side sometimes brutally fought back at different points - let's not forget the brutal guerilla warfare and scalping tactics of certain Native American tribes fighting back at the time. Consider those tribes the Hamas of their day, while other tribes got hoodwinked with alliances and peace treaties. Collecting all these examples, its a wide range of races, ethnicities and religions involved.

 

So why is it when it comes to Israel and Palestine it's any different? How is it any different? Because they're Muslim as opposed to Tibetan, black, Christian, Jewish, Native American or something else? Ridiculous, there's nothing uniquely regressive about Islam than any other religion in the world that it needs singling out. I hate religion overall but Islam is just a religion like any other than can be (and has been) abused. A powerful, first world nation (Israel) took over and continues to oppress a third world, poor, uneducated "nation" (Palestine). The powerful nation sends in settlers to take over Palestinian lands. They create camps and open air prisons. They destroyed hospitals and killed medics. Etc. etc. Palestinians have fought back, just like Native Americans, black South Africans and so on. We can, for example, say what a horrific thing it was that so-and-so Native American tribe brutally attacked Virginia, let's say. That doesn't mean the white colonialists are in the right overall given the context of why they attacked, and we continue to sympathize with the power gap between the two groups in that example (slings and arrows vs. white colonialists with guns) but not Israel vs. Palestine?

 

Israel and Palestine are no different - it's just Israel is a US ally, has been for a long time, and until social media and globalization most of the West just believed what teachers and the mainstream media fed them (Israel good, Palestine bad). That's changed, which is why it's bizarre (but good) to see more Palestinian support in the world than I ever have. Hamas sucks and did horrible things. But Israel is the main offender here if we take into account context as to why we are where we are right now. None of this is in a vacuum, just like China-Tibet, et. al. weren't in a vacuum.

Again, I'm an ignorant person, but I had no idea Israel was a US ally until this conflict. That is to say, that is not why I have formed my take. I also don't know much about the other "feuds" at the top of your post. Not nothing, but not a lot, similar to this current conflict. Probably the most I know about is Colonizers vs American Indians. While I generally side with the American Indians, it is definitely not a side I would defend all the time. Like, if now in the modern day, there was a large militant group of American Indians declaring war on America, and going around killing "civilians" I'd not be siding with them that's for sure. Pretty Apples to Oranges there I know.

 

Also, with the black South Africans vs white South Africans, I know almost nothing other than very bad things happened. But what I hear most about is random white families being slaughtered or worse. On the internet, that is all I have been presented with so I don't side with black South Africans based on what little I know. However, I also don't have any real strong stance on that. I'm just present with the deaths of people who seem to have not been the cause (but are assumedly reaping the benefits of their forefathers) and I can't say that is something I like to hear about.

 

I don't know what you'd call a person who has my stance (other than stupid or ignorant) but I pretty much fail at seeing past the present and most current conflict. What would you call someone whose opinions are based solely on present events besides the above?

 

Now, obviously, I could educate myself about all of these topics and form an educated opinion, but deep down I'm not really invested in these topics. I mostly just post because I like to "talk" and to see how people respond to what I say. For me, an ignorant person on these topics, it is interesting to read the responses I get from the more educated. And I don't mean that in a "haha imma troll lollololo" kinda way. I actually really do enjoy reading the responses I get. In a way, I sometimes learn from other board members. Like, no, I'm not going to click on an article written by some guy, but I like reading what people have to say.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, SuperSpreader said:

 

I'm thinking about Mexican cartels that brutalize Mexicans and are funded by US addicts and American gun manufacturers while the poor look up to them. Just like Hamas does and how they are funded by Iran. 

 

The Mexican cartels to the best of my knowledge don't operate a parallel governmental/social organizational structure in addition to their "military" wing as Hamas does.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

9 minutes ago, Bacon said:

But what I hear most about is random white families being slaughtered or worse. On the internet, that is all I have been presented with so I don't side with black South Africans based on what little I know.

 

You have been presented with the myth of "white genocide" in South Africa which is very much perpetuated by white supremacists.

 

The Racist Obsession with South African "White Genocide"

WWW.ADL.ORG

 

Quote

 

Here are the facts: Some white farmers are actually killed each year in South Africa—as are many black farmers and many other South Africans, largely because South Africa is a country with generally high rates of violent crime.  According to Africa Check, in 2016-17, 74 murders occurred during farm attacks—compared to 19,000 murders in the whole country. AgriSA, an association of agricultural unions in South Africa, has stated that the rate of farm murders is far lower in South Africa today than it was 20 years ago.

 

This is a far cry from the white supremacist claims of mass murder and ongoing “white genocide.”  Those allegations are rooted in a long history: For decades, white supremacists globally were cheerleaders for the institutionalized white supremacy of apartheid in South Africa. They have reacted bitterly to the end of the racist policy, and to the progress South Africans have made in pursuit of racial equality and reconciliation.

 

White supremacists have seized upon some of the farm-related violence in South Africa since the end of apartheid to peddle a propaganda campaign that exaggerates and distorts the situation to imply that South African whites are imperiled. They also insist that unless action is taken, whites in Europe and the United States will face the same sort of “genocide” at the hands of non-whites and immigrants. 

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

6 minutes ago, Bacon said:

What would you call someone whose opinions are based solely on present events besides the above?

 

American.

[Bacon]

8 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

You have been presented with the myth of "white genocide" in South Africa which is very much perpetuated by white supremacists.

This is good to know. Pretty much what little I know comes from Reddit that has been upvoted enough so I see it on r/all.

 

Edit. Actually, tho, thanks for letting me know for real. I would have hated to say that dumb shit out loud IRL. I mean, I never talk about this kind of stuff outside of the boards, but still. Thanks.

[Bacon]

1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

American.

based

[mclumber1]

 

24 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

As I said in an earlier post, they are half government, half gang, so you're right, but political structures are much more complicated today than in old times. But in broad strokes the point remains: they are fighting, brutally, for the Palestinian people, just like some tribes of the Native Americans did against the white colonialists for the same reason. In both cases it's horrific and sucks but it's a response to something, not taking the initiative.

 

If anything, what Europeans (and later America, Mexico, and Canada) did to the natives in North America is far worse than what the Jews have done in this tiny sliver of the region.  Israel occupies something like 0.3% of the land in the Middle East.  If we wanted a fair comparison, The United States would be solely comprised of Massachusetts, while the rest of the continent still being controlled and populated by Native Americans.  Also, Native Americans in Massachusetts would make up a quarter of the population, and have the same political rights and citizenship as their WASP neighbors.

[Massdriver]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Because it's ostensibly considered to be a developed, "Western" nation, I have no issue admitting that I hold Israel to a far higher moral standard than its "less developed" neighbors and that by and large shapes my perception of its actions.

 

If that's indicative of the "soft bigotry of low expectations", then so be it - I'm guilty as charged.

I hold Israel to a higher standard too and expect better. My comment wasn’t saying those are the only two ways to think about this issue. It’s too complicated and there aren’t any apparent solutions that are realistic. 

[TUFKAK]

I just woke from a nap but I feel it’s necessary to point out you have multiple users saying they hold Israel to a higher standard. Hmmm, wonder why that is, maybe it’s because liberalism and democracy is fucking better, nay, superior to the world view surrounding them.

[Greatoneshere]

3 hours ago, SuperSpreader said:

 

I'm thinking about Mexican cartels that brutalize Mexicans and are funded by US addicts and American gun manufacturers while the poor look up to them. Just like Hamas does and how they are funded by Iran. 

 

Except . . . 

 

3 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

The Mexican cartels to the best of my knowledge don't operate a parallel governmental/social organizational structure in addition to their "military" wing as Hamas does.

 

Exactly. And @SuperSpreader choosing to focus on my Native American example alone when I cited 4-5 is being quite selective.

 

3 hours ago, Bacon said:

Again, I'm an ignorant person, but I had no idea Israel was a US ally until this conflict. That is to say, that is not why I have formed my take. I also don't know much about the other "feuds" at the top of your post. Not nothing, but not a lot, similar to this current conflict. Probably the most I know about is Colonizers vs American Indians. While I generally side with the American Indians, it is definitely not a side I would defend all the time. Like, if now in the modern day, there was a large militant group of American Indians declaring war on America, and going around killing "civilians" I'd not be siding with them that's for sure. Pretty Apples to Oranges there I know.

 

I appreciate your forthrightness and honesty. It's refreshing. I'd probably say what SFLUFAN said - you just sound like a normal American, typically ignorant of what's going on in world news, mostly doesn't care, and accepts what they are generally told on a surface level about whatever issue. It's totally normal so no worries. I do wish peoplee bothered to be more worldly and plugged in since it engenders empathy in a person but can't win 'em all.  

 

2 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

If anything, what Europeans (and later America, Mexico, and Canada) did to the natives in North America is far worse than what the Jews have done in this tiny sliver of the region.  Israel occupies something like 0.3% of the land in the Middle East.  If we wanted a fair comparison, The United States would be solely comprised of Massachusetts, while the rest of the continent still being controlled and populated by Native Americans.  Also, Native Americans in Massachusetts would make up a quarter of the population, and have the same political rights and citizenship as their WASP neighbors.

 

Agreed - in terms of proportion the genocide of Native Americans was worse - it also happened hundreds of years ago, I'd hope we're better today. Additionally, the point of my original example wasn't to illustrate in terms of proportion, but in terms of us siding with the clearly oppressed in other examples but not the Israel-Palestine example.

 

1 hour ago, TUFKAK said:

I just woke from a nap but I feel it’s necessary to point out you have multiple users saying they hold Israel to a higher standard. Hmmm, wonder why that is, maybe it’s because liberalism and democracy is fucking better, nay, superior to the world view surrounding them.

 

I haven't said that at all (others indeed have) - and Israel isn't meeting the standard regardless. But when your country purports to be better, then yes, a higher moral standard is applied. Why do you think America gets such shit for its hypocrisy? Because unlike a Russia or China, we purport to be morally righteous and good, but often aren't. Hypocrisy is worth calling out. We're still way better than Russia and China but acting like our shit don't stink to a degree is frustrating for those people in those countries who do suffer from American world hegemony and foreign policies.

[Bacon]

Bacon

Professor of Porn

Typical American Pig

[TUFKAK]

@Greatoneshere

 

im on mobile so I will respond when I have a computer accessible, not ignoring your points as they’re worth mentioning and discussing. 

[SuperSpreader]

23 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

Exactly. And @SuperSpreader choosing to focus on my Native American example alone when I cited 4-5 is being quite selective.

 

wat

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, SuperSpreader said:

wat

 

 

From my post with examples, all you brought up is disagreeing with the characterization of the more violent Native American tribes of their day being the Hamas of their day which was sort of missing the bigger point I was making is all.

 

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, Bacon said:

Bacon

Professor of Porn

Typical American Pig

 

You can be both!  

[SuperSpreader]

7 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

 

From my post with examples, all you brought up is disagreeing with the characterization of the more violent Native American tribes of their day being the Hamas of their day which was sort of missing the bigger point I was making is all.

 

 

You write many things 

[Greatoneshere]

15 minutes ago, SuperSpreader said:

You write many things 

 

You aren't wrong, I try to be brief but it rarely works out that way.  

[TUFKAK]

4 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

You aren't wrong, I try to be brief but it rarely works out that way.  

This is why I need a damn computer, too many points lol

[Spork3245]

I’m prefacing this by saying that I’ve been going back and forth on responding to you on this, as you’re one of my favorite people here and I do not want to “fight” or cause bad feelings. I’ve also been seeing a lot of absolute nonsense and BS on my favorite sub-reddits and elsewhere that has been deeply bothering me (some people, liberals, outright cheering Hamas, which I know you are not doing).

 

8 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

So why is it when it comes to Israel and Palestine it's any different? How is it any different?

Probably because the Palestinians response throughout this entire debacle, in all but a small handful of times, has been “fuck you, Jew, die” rather than any attempt to peaceful resolution.

Your other examples really aren’t apples to apples. All of those other groups simply wanted to exist and were pushed around, killed, subjugated, and oppressed without any real peace offers. The Palestinians were offered co-existence multiple times throughout all of this and the response has always been “peace comes when every Jew in the middle east is dead”. Hell of a side to root for.

 

You can make arguments that prior attempts at peace and two-state resolutions were untenable, even the original one proposed by the British and U.N., but, again you should take into account the fact that the Jews in the area were willing to co-exist, while the Palestinian response was not to find a solution that did work but to try to kill and drive out all Jews in the region three days later. They lost, and they lost land. More battles, more lost land. At this point Netanyahu (and, calling him a gigantic turd is disrespectful to turds, IMO) does just bully them out of land now, and has set back any possible peace by (likely) decades.

 

The thing with Israel that truly gets people’s ire is their response to any/all attacks or even potential threats; “10x what you do to us”, “never again”. Those mottos lead to shows of force and high scale destruction with a ton of absolutely horrendous fallout that is absolutely appalling, and it’s certainly a reason why some take the other side. However, if Palestine had the military capability of Israel, how much of Israel do you think they would destroy? Would they warn non-combatants to get out first? 
And, with those last questions, let’s remove Hamas from the equation in terms of them being the ones leading the charge, let’s just talk about Gazans. Nearly 60% of Gazans support Hamas and their actions as of July 2023 according to polling, 75% support the PIL and Lions Den which are even worse than Hamas. This is not the polling you’d want to see from a group that wants peace.

[SuperSpreader]

3 hours ago, TUFKAK said:

This is why I need a damn computer, too many points lol

 

Points are just semantics traps to spin on a series of gotchas

 

No one is convincing anyone and there's no reason to waste energy on it 

 

 

[Spork3245]

Something I want to add is that talking about Palestinians as a whole when discussing the current Gazan situation, to me, is either bad faith or a lack of understanding of the areas. The West Bank =/= Gaza. It would be like discussing Alabama but including the sentiment of California (yes, I’m purposefully being hyperbolic).

[Spork3245]

Sorry (not really, but) one more thing: the obsession over who was wherever first is such a shit argument on both sides. No matter which side you’re on with that nonsense you’re drawing arbitrary dates and/or timelines to give one side or the other the “right” to the area:

500 years back? Too far!

300 years back? Not far enough!

Been back for over 130 years? Not long enough!

Not in the area for 70 years? Too soon!

 

Just absolutely fuck off with that, it serves absolutely zero purpose in fixing things in 20-fucking-23.

Peace can only be achieved by forgiveness and education on both sides, and moving the fuck on and dealing with today instead of obsessing over the past constantly with who started what and who did what to who.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

Interrupting this stream of nuanced and substantive debate to remind us all that liberals are not the only ones making stupid public gestures that reduce it all to ‘Team A good, Team B bad!’ (okay, maybe you didn’t need reminding, but whatever)

 

Exhibit #1, from our favorite Orban wannabe.

 

[Greatoneshere]

8 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

Probably because the Palestinians response throughout this entire debacle, in all but a small handful of times, has been “fuck you, Jew, die” rather than any attempt to peaceful resolution.

Your other examples really aren’t apples to apples. All of those other groups simply wanted to exist and were pushed around, killed, subjugated, and oppressed without any real peace offers. The Palestinians were offered co-existence multiple times throughout all of this and the response has always been “peace comes when every Jew in the middle east is dead”. Hell of a side to root for.

 

You can make arguments that prior attempts at peace and two-state resolutions were untenable, even the original one proposed by the British and U.N., but, again you should take into account the fact that the Jews in the area were willing to co-exist, while the Palestinian response was not to find a solution that did work but to try to kill and drive out all Jews in the region three days later. They lost, and they lost land. More battles, more lost land. At this point Netanyahu (and, calling him a gigantic turd is disrespectful to turds, IMO) does just bully them out of land now, and has set back any possible peace by (likely) decades.

 

The thing with Israel that truly gets people’s ire is their response to any/all attacks or even potential threats; “10x what you do to us”, “never again”. Those mottos lead to shows of force and high scale destruction with a ton of absolutely horrendous fallout that is absolutely appalling, and it’s certainly a reason why some take the other side. However, if Palestine had the military capability of Israel, how much of Israel do you think they would destroy? Would they warn non-combatants to get out first? 
And, with those last questions, let’s remove Hamas from the equation in terms of them being the ones leading the charge, let’s just talk about Gazans. Nearly 60% of Gazans support Hamas and their actions as of July 2023 according to polling, 75% support the PIL and Lions Den which are even worse than Hamas. This is not the polling you’d want to see from a group that wants peace.

 

I appreciate the preface! Your posts are great too - I have no animus towards anybody here, just trying to put forth a different perspective than I'm primarily seeing in this thread was all. Also - it's a bit disingenuous to say that Palestinians have never attempted a peaceful resolution - they frequently are negotiating from a place of disadvantage. Also, what do you mean in the other examples they weren't offered "real" peace offers. Native American tribes signed actual treaties and were then betrayed. White South Africans did the same to black South Africans. The Chinese offered faux peace deals to the Tibetans to be, essentially, peacefully rather than forcefully conquered. The Armenians in N-K were promised by the Azerbaijani's that they could stay in N-K under their rule but the Armenians were so distrustful of that promise that they fled en masse to Armenia. Trust is a big factor when doing peace offers and the Palestinians understandably don't trust Israel. I could be misremembering my history but Israel-Palestine is not a unique situation. You don't think there were groups within my examples, subsects, that were: "fuck you, [blank oppressor group], die"? Each one definitely did. 

 

You keep treating Israel and Palestine as if they are equal groups with equal bargaining power at the negotiating table. One side is a rich, first world nation with nuclear capabilities backed by the most powerful military in the US (and the West in general) and Palestine has what? Faux Muslim-dominant country allies that use them when they can but don't actually help at all? And of course Palestine initially railed against the forced UN two-state solution while the people coming in "were willing to co-exist". Why should Palestine capitulate their country to outsiders? Also, before the UN resolution after WW2, Jews lives peacefully alongside Palestinians, all the ones who moved there during the 50 year Zionist movement prior to WW2 so Palestinians were happy to live alongside Jews in Palestine, but not some two state solution where they lose massive swathes of land and their homes to this. The lack of sympathy of how this went down towards the Palestinians is crazy - the Jews had no right to just take it just because some UN resolution said it was okay. You seem to suggest this gives Israel carte blanche when that's not true. And how does that justify everythingn afterward, from camps to setters taking land?

 

And yeah - of course Palestine would scorch earth Israel if the shoe was on the other foot - they're the oppressed group! You don't think many Native Americans, black South Africans, Tibetans, et. al. throughout history also wouldn't have? Damning Palestine for what it can't do, and what it hasn't done, because we think they'd do it is not credit to Israel's restraint any more than America not dropping nukes on Afghanistan and Iraq is "restraint" compared to if the Taliban and Saddam's government had nukes and used them on us. Like The Last Jedi, we're judging Palestinians for what they haven't done yet because we assume it will all be terrible than what they have done, which is just try to survive and fight back under the boot of a very powerful nation. And Palestinians are supporting the parties that actually exist - I don't like Republicans or Democrats but I vote for what is available - the average Palestinian does the same. The average Palestinian just wants to live with their families in peace and have food, water, education, etc. much of which they don't have thanks to Israel.

 

And 500 years ago vs. 75 years ago matters a lot. Any political scientist will tell you that historic inflection points do matter, and when the UN resolution was passed to create the state of Israel in 1948, that was an inflection point that began the current, modern whole mess. Nothing before that is really relevant to modern day politics between Israel and Palestine except the 1890's Zionist movement beforehand. Why people can't understand that history has eras and inflection points determine the politics of each era. How far back do you go with white colonialists? You don't go back to Leaf Erickson, you only go back to when mass colonization begun. With China-Tibet, you go back to the invasion of Tibet by China, not hundreds of years back. With South Africa, you go back to when white people took it over. I'm surprised timelines has been a point of debate here because Israel's foreign policies matter, and that's been since 1948. Inflection points are not arbitrary.

 

Also, Palestinians probably don't even believe at this point they can have peace, and that's in Israel too. Israel is the one with all the power here who have always dictated terms but we expect the Palestinians to just take it all on the chin, still desire peace, and never fight back? That's patently unfair and not something we ask any other poor, uneducated group of people under the heel of an invader that's created essentially an apartheid state. And yes there's a difference of course between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. I've said what Hamas did sucks. I said I don't like Hamas, Lions Den, Hezbollah, etc. I said Israel has a hostage crisis it must address and they must do something to prevent further violence and bloodshed. So it's not like I'm blind to Israel's situation, I'm sympathizing with them too to some degree. But at the end of the day, it's the average Palestinian civilian that has suffered the most throughout Israel's existence by a wide margin but for some reason Israel gets free reign and we only care when Israel is attacked. Where was all the support for Palestine when it was mostly Israel killing and winning in the past when it was super one-sided? Suddenly Hamas pulls off something with some proportion and now we all care because it's Israel but when Palestinians are getting killed indiscriminately and Israel targets hospitals and medics out of cruelty (like in 2014) I did not see huge threads like this on the internet back then. That's indicative of a lot.

[Spork3245]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Also - it's a bit disingenuous to say that Palestinians have never attempted a peaceful resolution - they frequently are negotiating from a place of disadvantage.

 

When did the Palestinians offer a peaceful resolution? The PLO (not even Palestine as a whole) has only recognized Israel has a right to exist for less than a decade.

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Also, what do you mean in the other examples they weren't offered "real" peace offers.

 

Freedom/no more ownership of land/Independence. I did say "real" peace offers in my post.  

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

I could be misremembering my history but Israel-Palestine is not a unique situation. You don't think there were groups within my examples, subsects, that were: "fuck you, [blank oppressor group, die"? Each one definitely did. 

 

Sure, there are ones that "fought back", but not ones that literally don't think the other has a right to exist. Tibet's stance has never been that all Chinese must die and China does not have a right to exist, The Native American stance was never "all Europeans/Americans must die and you don't have a right to exist".

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

You keep treating Israel and Palestine as if they are equal groups with equal bargaining power at the negotiating table.

 

I am not doing that at all, I fully understand they are, at best, beaten down (understatement). However, I'd argue that you are insinuating that the Palestinians are incapable of offering any type of peace deal or attempting to work with Israel to find a tenable two state solution, which is kinda odd.

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

Why should Palestine capitulate their country to outsiders?

 

Jewish settlements were already there for 70 something years before the U.N/British proposal. It's disingenuous, at best, to ignore that. 

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

Also, before the UN resolution after WW2, Jews lives peacefully alongside Palestinians, all the ones who moved there during the 50 year Zionist movement prior to WW2 so Palestinians were happy to live alongside Jews in Palestine, but not some two state solution where they lose massive swathes of land and their homes to this.

 

Which brings me back to "the Palestinian response was not to find a solution that did work but to try to kill and drive out all Jews in the region three days later." Why should either group give up their homes and land for some two state solution?

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

The lack of sympathy of how this went down towards the Palestinians is crazy - the Jews had no right to just take it just because some UN resolution said it was okay.

 

The lack of sympathy to how the Palestinians tried to literally kill every Jew three days later is crazy. The Palestinians had no right to just take the land by force because they didn't like a proposed resolution.

It really, REALLY, works both ways.

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

You seem to suggest this gives Israel carte blanche when that's not true. And how does that justify everythingn afterward, from camps to setters taking land?

 

I literally called Netanyahu a turd (though mentioned it's an insult to turds) and said how the bullying that has happened since has set back any possible peace by decades, but okay?

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

And yeah - of course Palestine would scorch earth Israel if the shoe was on the other foot - they're the oppressed group!

 

They wanted to do this before they were oppressed, though, as well as every surrounding nation.

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

You don't think many Native Americans, black South Africans, Tibetans, et. al. throughout history also wouldn't have?

 

Tibet is shooting missiles into China on a daily basis? Kidnapping and beheading Chinese citizens? Killing 100+ teens at a music festival?

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

Damning Palestine for what it can't do, and what it hasn't done, because we think they'd do it is not credit to Israel's restraint any more than America not dropping nukes on Afghanistan and Iraq is "restraint" compared to if the Taliban and Saddam's government had nukes and used them on us.

 

I think you greatly misinterpreted what I was saying if you think that was in some way "crediting" Israel. The point is that they want all Jews dead, as do the not subjugated neighboring nations.

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Like The Last Jedi,

 

Please don't bring god awful movie debates that aren't worth debating into this.

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

we're judging Palestinians for what they haven't done yet because we assume it will all be terrible than what they have done, which is just try to survive and fight back under the boot of a very powerful nation.

 

.. so you're cool with terrorism as long as it's against "a very powerful nation" that they're "fighting back against"? I'm really blown away with this statement, but I seriously have no other way to interpret it. The way Palestinians have been "fighting back" has been to target civilians. You're saying "good on them!" to that? 

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

And Palestinians are supporting the parties that actually exist

 

There are more than two political parties in Palestine. This reads as an excuse for actions and an attempt to remove culpability.

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

- I don't like Republicans or Democrats but I vote for what is available - the average Palestinian does the same. The average Palestinian just wants to live with their families in peace and have food, water, education, etc. much of which they don't have thanks to Israel.

 

Again, there were more than two parties to vote for, 44% (a large majority lead) went to Hamas, the most extreme one to vote for at the time.

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

And 500 years ago vs. 75 years ago matters a lot.

 

It doesn't matter today when trying to find a solution. It's just a lot of pointless noise. What do you want Israel to do? Get up and leave? It absolutely does not matter and is just holding on to complete BS that ends in more war and death.

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Any political scientist will tell you that historic inflection points do matter, and when the UN resolution was passed to create the state of Israel in 1948, that was an inflection point that began the current, modern whole mess. Nothing before that is really relevant to modern day politics between Israel and Palestine except the 1890's Zionist movement beforehand. Why people can't understand that history has eras and inflection points determine the politics of each era. How far back do you go with white colonialists? You don't go back to Leaf Erickson, you only go back to when mass colonization begun. With China-Tibet, you go back to the invasion of Tibet by China, not hundreds of years back. With South Africa, you go back to when white people took it over. I'm surprised timelines has been a point of debate here because Israel's foreign policies matter, and that's been since 1948.

 

I didn't say that history doesn't matter, I said that history doesn't matter to find a solution today. HUGE difference.

 

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

Also, Palestinians probably don't even believe at this point they can have peace, and that's in Israel too. Israel is the one with all the power here who have always dictated terms but we expect the Palestinians to just take it all on the chin, still desire peace, and never fight back? That's patently unfair and not something we ask any other poor, uneducated group of people under the heel of an invader that's created essentially an apartheid state. 

 

It's even more unfair to not expect Palestinian leaders to come to the table and attempt realistic solutions. 

 

BTW, there are Israeli citizens that are Palestinian, living in Israel, voting rights, and all that: there's over 3000 who are currently serving in the IDF, all volunteers. As I mentioned previously, the issue Israel has isn't with Palestinians, or Muslims, it's with people who think they shouldn't exist. 

[Greatoneshere]

22 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

When did the Palestinians offer a peaceful resolution? The PLO (not even Palestine as a whole) has only recognized Israel has a right to exist for less than a decade.

 

 

Freedom/no more ownership of land/Independence. I did say "real" peace offers in my post.  

 

 

Sure, there are ones that "fought back", but not ones that literally don't think the other has a right to exist. Tibet's stance has never been that all Chinese must die and China does not have a right to exist, The Native American stance was never "all Europeans/Americans must die and you don't have a right to exist".

 

 

I am not doing that at all, I fully understand they are, at best, beaten down (understatement). However, I'd argue that you are insinuating that the Palestinians are incapable of offering any type of peace deal or attempting to work with Israel to find a tenable two state solution, which is kinda odd.

 

 

Jewish settlements were already there for 70 something years before the U.N/British proposal. It's disingenuous, at best, to ignore that. 

 

 

Which brings me back to "the Palestinian response was not to find a solution that did work but to try to kill and drive out all Jews in the region three days later." Why should either group give up their homes and land for some two state solution?

 

 

The lack of sympathy to how the Palestinians tried to literally kill every Jew three days later is crazy. The Palestinians had no right to just take the land by force because they didn't like a proposed resolution.

It really, REALLY, works both ways.

 

 

I literally called Netanyahu a turd (though mentioned it's an insult to turds) and said how the bullying that has happened since has set back any possible peace by decades, but okay?

 

 

They wanted to do this before they were oppressed, though, as well as every surrounding nation.

 

 

Tibet is shooting missiles into China on a daily basis? Kidnapping and beheading Chinese citizens? Killing 100+ teens at a music festival?

 

 

I think you greatly misinterpreted what I was saying if you think that was in some way "crediting" Israel. The point is that they want all Jews dead, as do the not subjugated neighboring nations.

 

 

Please don't bring god awful movie debates that aren't worth debating into this.

 

 

.. so you're cool with terrorism as long as it's against "a very powerful nation" that they're "fighting back against"? I'm really blown away with this statement, but I seriously have no other way to interpret it. The way Palestinians have been "fighting back" has been to target civilians. You're saying "good on them!" to that? 

 

 

There are more than two political parties in Palestine. This reads as an excuse for actions and an attempt to remove culpability.

 

 

Again, there were more than two parties to vote for, 44% (a large majority lead) went to Hamas, the most extreme one to vote for at the time.

 

 

It doesn't matter today when trying to find a solution. It's just a lot of pointless noise. What do you want Israel to do? Get up and leave? It absolutely does not matter and is just holding on to complete BS that ends in more war and death.

 

 

I didn't say that history doesn't matter, I said that history doesn't matter to find a solution today. HUGE difference.

 

 

 

It's even more unfair to not expect Palestinian leaders to come to the table and attempt realistic solutions. 

 

BTW, there are Israeli citizens that are Palestinian, living in Israel, voting rights, and all that: there's over 3000 who are currently serving in the IDF, all volunteers. As I mentioned previously, the issue Israel has isn't with Palestinians, or Muslims, it's with people who think they shouldn't exist. 

 

I'm not great at quoting block by block, but I'll space out my response to each one of your points.

 

1. I'm saying Palestine hasn't offered any peace deal - they aren't really in a place to offer one that advantages them at all. You seem to suggest that they should just accept their current situation and offer up something that at least allows them to live but if you're a Palestinian you don't trust any deal would be peacefully enforced in their favor. I'm not saying the Palestinians have been smart at the negotiating table, they obviously want more than they'll ever actually get, I'm just saying I sympathize with that, not that I agree with it.

 

2. Yeah, I mean "real" peace offers to us don't appear like "real" peace offers to the Palestinians, I think that's where the divide is. I do agree Palestinians probably need to accept their new normal and find a path to shitty peace at this point but do I understand their recalcitrance? Yes. Do you not?

 

3. Palestinians believe the Jews have a right to exist (like Tibetans with Chinese, etc.), just that Israel (the country) doesn't. And I agree with them - it's an illegally formed country. Do I think that means all Israelis must die and its people pushed into the sea? No, but that's just rhetoric and terrorism - the average Palestinian is hurt and angry from decades of oppression and abuse, they are going to say and do things because of it. I'm saying I understand that level of anger. I'm pretty sure like the Tibetans, et. al. they just want them all out of their land/country. Is that unreasonable?

 

4. Yes, I do think the Palestinians are incapable of offering any peace deal that the Palestinians would like. You're asking them to capitulate in the face of defeat. I'm not in disagreement but I can certainly understand not offering any peace deal which is basically Palestine giving up on everything that's happened to them and accepting the status quo. That's hard to do when you feel you need to get something out of all the losses you've suffered the past decades. Just accepting the current situation and finalizing it into a peace deal probably makes all of those losses worthless.

 

5. Jewish settlements were where for 70 years? In Palestine/Israel? Yeah, of course, but that's different than what I'm referring to, which is encouraged pogroms by Netanyahu, etc. to have super religious Jewish families take over recently taken Palestinian lands now, not 70 years prior to 1948.

 

6. Because the homes the Jews were given weren't theirs to take? 

 

7. Take a land by force? It was all Palestinian land until the UN resolution in 1948. How exactly do they not have a right to take back what they didn't agree to in the first place? They pleaded with the UN not to do this resolution ahead of time and the UN steamrolled them anyway. Of course they fought 3 days later to take back what they never wanted to give.

 

8. If you agree about the settlers and camps, then yeah, Israel/Netanyahu has set peace back decades, but Palestine should accept any peace deal offered them or in the alternative offer up one themselves? Why is the onus and burden on Palestine and not Israel to offer a fair peace deal with concessions for what they've done?

 

9. They fought back before they were an oppressed group, and yes, so did the surrounding nations. Wouldn't anyone? It's a response to a perceived unauthorized invasion.

 

10. Those other groups did fight back to varying degrees, you're argument suggests that because Palestine is able to fight better/more that means its worse. They're doing what they can in desperation just like those other groups did - I'm not saying it's proportionally the same.

 

10. Who wants all the Jews dead? Hamas or all Palestinians? Hamas, yes, average Palestinian, I'm going to say no based on how people operate and based on the Palestinians I know.

 

11. I'm not approving the targeting of civilians at all, but yes, I'm cool with guerilla warfare against a monolithic foe that is oppressing them. They can't fight a traditional war so they are fighting an asymmetrical one. I don't approve of terrorism or targeting of civilians which was heinous by Hamas in the recent attack but Israel does the same with much more firepower and ability. I'm not gonna indict the Palestinians for doing what they can against a nearly implacable foe.

 

12. I don't think anyone is grasping how fucked up the governmental structures are on the ground in Palestine. Thee average Palestinian has little power and "democratic elections" don't function like they do here and radicalized groups are going to obviously bee the main political parties in a radicalized atmosphere created by Israel that the terrorists will obviously take advantage of. I'm not removing culpability but explaining that it's not as easy as the West things it is. Even in Pakistan all 3 political parties suck and they certainly have the ability to form better parties than Palestine. I'm just being realistic.

 

13. And 70 million plus Americans voted for Donald Trump - it can't bee that surprising if our Republican party can get such support in our political climate in our country, that Hamas could in their country. And we hate the ones who voted for Trump but we don't say all Americans are terrible. There's still 56%, based on your example, that didn't vote for Hamas.

 

14. I agree with you that history doesn't matter at this point. The only reason that ever came up in the first place is because TUFKAK said the surrounding Arab nations are more the problem for Palestinians than Israel is, and that's not true. Israel is the main problem for Palestinians. But no, pointing fingers doesn't help with a solution, and no, I don't expect Israel to just up and leave either. In fact, I've argued for a long time that after the last rounds of real negotiations with the Israeli's in the 2000's failed that that was that. Palestine needs to accept its fate and that like the Tibets and Native Americans before them, they've lost and need to accept it. But I understand not accepting it is all. So I fully agree with you here.

 

15. The issue Israel has is they want a country that was never theirs to have, they took it anyway, and now they want to keep what they have and have taken more since. If that includes oppressing or hurting the Palestinians for them, then so be it (hence the last 75 years). Yeah, they don't want to kill or push all Palestinians into the sea, they just want the Palestinians to give up what Israel wants to take, do it peaceably and be happy with it, which isn't reasonable. Palestinians are essentially second class citizens in Israel/Palestine. One really good movie I saw that I recommend everyone check out is Paradise Now, to get a good idea of how terrorists radicalize regular Palestinian men in Palestine, why Israel has made that super easy to do for the terrorists, and how much better life is in Israel vs. Palestine.

 

[Spork3245]

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I'm not great at quoting block by block, but I'll space out my response to each one of your points.

 

Just put your cursor within the quotes and hit enter twice, my dude  

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

1. I'm saying Palestine hasn't offered any peace deal - they aren't really in a place to offer one that advantages them at all. You seem to suggest that they should just accept their current situation and offer up something that at least allows them to live but if you're a Palestinian you don't trust any deal would be peacefully enforced in their favor. I'm not saying the Palestinians have been smart at the negotiating table, they obviously want more than they'll ever actually get, I'm just saying I sympathize with that, not that I agree with it.

 

I'm not saying that Palestine is necessarily the ones to offer a solution, but they should come to the table and engage in discussion. I am also certainly not saying they should "accept their current situation", they should have many things given to them in a negotiation. Also, while they aren't in a position to make demands, there would certainly be extreme international pressure on Israel should serious talks begin. Israel has given conquered/taken land back in the past (not Netanyahu, who, I must reiterate, is a turd).

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

2. Yeah, I mean "real" peace offers to us don't appear like "real" peace offers to the Palestinians, I think that's where the divide is. I do agree Palestinians probably need to accept their new normal and find a path to shitty peace at this point but do I understand their recalcitrance? Yes. Do you not?

 

I'm talking having discussions, not just blindly accepting whatever is thrown at them, and was mostly talking about the original resolution (which we both agree was not good). The main issue Palestinians had with it, IIRC, was that Israelis had slightly more land given than them - that was something, IMO, that could've been discussed and a solution could've been found... instead of war. (EDIT: Or was it that the Palestinians wanted it all and didn't want the Jews to have any of the land? I can't remember)

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

3. Palestinians believe the Jews have a right to exist

 

Bruh:

Sermon delivered by 'Atallah Abu Al-Subh, former Hamas minister of culture, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV, April 8, 2011:
"Whoever is killed by a Jew receives the reward of two martyrs, because the very thing that the Jews did to the prophets was done to him.

"The Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the Earth, because they have displayed hostility to Allah.

"Allah will kill the Jews in the hell of the world to come, just like they killed the believers in the hell of this world.

"The Jews kill anyone who believes in Allah. They do not want to see any peace whatsoever on Earth."

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

(like Tibetans with Chinese, etc.), just that Israel (the country) doesn't. And I agree with them - it's an illegally formed country. 

 

I strongly disagree with this and it goes back to the "it doesn't matter now with fixing things in 2023" comment I made. Stating that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, after it's existed for nearing 80 years, is just a bad take, IMO. In 1950 the argument held more water, but it's been a nation for too long for the argument to make sense now in any way that actual matters or helps anyone.

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

Do I think that means all Israelis must die and its people pushed into the sea? No, but that's just rhetoric and terrorism - the average Palestinian is hurt and angry from decades of oppression and abuse, they are going to say and do things because of it. I'm saying I understand that level of anger. I'm pretty sure like the Tibetans, et. al. they just want them all out of their land/country. Is that unreasonable?

 

Yes, it is unreasonable when you're not even making attempts at peace and your "anger" turns into killing civilians. I cannot nor will ever empathize with that.

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

4. Yes, I do think the Palestinians are incapable of offering any peace deal that the Palestinians would like. You're asking them to capitulate in the face of defeat. I'm not in disagreement but I can certainly understand not offering any peace deal which is basically Palestine giving up on everything that's happened to them and accepting the status quo. That's hard to do when you feel you need to get something out of all the losses you've suffered the past decades. Just accepting the current situation and finalizing it into a peace deal probably makes all of those losses worthless.

 

To reiterate, I'm in no way stating that Palestinians come up with a peace deal and offer it, I'm saying they should be at the table and willing to talk, not to blindly accept a terrible deal.

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

5. Jewish settlements were where for 70 years? In Palestine/Israel? Yeah, of course, but that's different than what I'm referring to, which is encouraged pogroms by Netanyahu, etc. to have super religious Jewish families take over recently taken Palestinian lands now, not 70 years prior to 1948.

 

I already called him a turd multiple times and have said that this wasn't okay, though?

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

6. Because the homes the Jews were given weren't theirs to take? 

 

You know that not all of the land given to the Jews for Israel in that solution was where Palestinians already were, and that not all of the land given to Palestinians was were Jews weren't, right? Both were giving up land that both were already on.

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

7. It was all Palestinian land until the UN resolution in 1948.

 

Except for the Jews that already lived there...?

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

8.  but Palestine should accept any peace deal offered them or in the alternative offer up one themselves? Why is the onus and burden on Palestine and not Israel to offer a fair peace deal with concessions for what they've done?

 

I never said nor implied any of this.

Also, how can a peace deal happen if both sides don't agree to one? Israel can't sign a peace deal that's not accepted by or discussed with Palestine.

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

9. They fought back before they were an oppressed group, and yes, so did the surrounding nations. Wouldn't anyone? It's a response to a perceived unauthorized invasion.

 

An unauthorized invasion of people who were coexisting for 70 years prior to a name change.

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

10. Those other groups did fight back to varying degrees, you're argument suggests that because Palestine is able to fight better/more that means its worse. They're doing what they can in desperation just like those other groups did - I'm not saying it's proportionally the same.

 

Killing and kidnapping civilians is "fighting better"?

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

10. Who wants all the Jews dead? Hamas or all Palestinians? Hamas, yes, average Palestinian, I'm going to say no based on how people operate and based on the Palestinians I know.

 

Hamas has ~60% support from Gazans. At best, they support ones who do want death to all Jews. The average Palestinian doesn't if we're counting the West Bank, though, but as I previously mentioned, that's not a 1:1 comparison. 

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

11. I'm not approving the targeting of civilians at all, but yes, I'm cool with guerilla warfare against a monolithic foe that is oppressing them. They can't fight a traditional war so they are fighting an asymmetrical one. I don't approve of terrorism or targeting of civilians which was heinous by Hamas in the recent attack but Israel does the same with much more firepower and ability. I'm not gonna indict the Palestinians for doing what they can against a nearly implacable foe.

 

Israel doesn't purposely target civilians, they just don't care about civilians in the collateral. Both are bad, one is worse.

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

12. I don't think anyone is grasping how fucked up the governmental structures are on the ground in Palestine. Thee average Palestinian has little power and "democratic elections" don't function like they do here and radicalized groups are going to obviously bee the main political parties in a radicalized atmosphere created by Israel that the terrorists will obviously take advantage of. I'm not removing culpability but explaining that it's not as easy as the West things it is. Even in Pakistan all 3 political parties suck and they certainly have the ability to form better parties than Palestine. I'm just being realistic.

 

Fatah was on the ballot and won in the West Bank.

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

13. And 70 million plus Americans voted for Donald Trump - it can't bee that surprising if our Republican party can get such support in our political climate in our country, that Hamas could in their country. And we hate the ones who voted for Trump but we don't say all Americans are terrible. There's still 56%, based on your example, that didn't vote for Hamas.

 

There's only two viable political parties here, there were multiple to choose from (who all won seats) in that election in Gaza.

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

14. I agree with you that history doesn't matter at this point. The only reason that ever came up in the first place is because TUFKAK said the surrounding Arab nations are more the problem for Palestinians than Israel is, and that's not true. Israel is the main problem for Palestinians. But no, pointing fingers doesn't help with a solution, and no, I don't expect Israel to just up and leave either. In fact, I've argued for a long time that after the last rounds of real negotiations with the Israeli's in the 2000's failed that that was that. Palestine needs to accept its fate and that like the Tibets and Native Americans before them, they've lost and need to accept it. But I understand not accepting it is all. So I fully agree with you here.

 

The history comment wasn't necessarily directed at/towards you, it was more venting at the shit I've been seeing people say elsewhere.

 

56 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

15. The issue Israel has is they want a country that was never theirs to have, they took it anyway, and now they want to keep what they have and have taken more since. If that includes oppressing or hurting the Palestinians for them, then so be it (hence the last 75 years). Yeah, they don't want to kill or push all Palestinians into the sea, they just want the Palestinians to give up what Israel wants to take, do it peaceably and be happy with it, which isn't reasonable. Palestinians are essentially second class citizens in Israel/Palestine. One really good movie I saw that I recommend everyone check out is Paradise Now, to get a good idea of how terrorists radicalize regular Palestinian men in Palestine, why Israel has made that super easy to do for the terrorists, and how much better life is in Israel vs. Palestine.

 

The Palestinians I mentioned living within the Israeli boarders have equal rights with Jews/Christians/other Arabs and are full Israeli citizens. The ones that are (well below) second-class citizens are the ones living in the West Bank and Gaza.

And, the thing is... from my perspective, land is land - it was a name change more than anything. Neither group had full independence when it was under the British Mandate or even under the Ottomans, did they? 

 

Look, if you've been following my posts ITT then you should know I do not think Israel is innocent in any way/shape/form, however, I reject the idea that Palestine is somehow some poor innocent victims that did nothing wrong. Both sides are culpable in all of this.

[johnny]

greatoneshere putting on a prime michael jordan performance ITT 

[UpvoteShittyTakesOnly]

lots of writing and no actual thoughts on how to resolve the foundational conflict of the need for a jewish state in the eyes of the israelis and the requirement of the full right of return for palestinians

[Spork3245]

7 minutes ago, UpvoteShittyTakesOnly said:

lots of writing and no actual thoughts on how to resolve the foundational conflict of the need for a jewish state in the eyes of the israelis and the requirement of the full right of return for palestinians

 

Feel free to chime in with the resolution. 

[Bacon]

I kinda think the alt is lame.

Either they are honest about their opinions and thus "hiding" behind the alt or they are being dishonest and having fun with the alt.

Also, it's upvote shitty takes, not "GivesOpinionOnTakesIDontLike".

 

I'm not siding against your opinions @UpvoteShittyTakesOnly just that using an alt feels kinda cheap.

[Spork3245]

Just now, Bacon said:

I kinda think the alt is lame.

Either they are honest about their opinions and thus "hiding" behind the alt or they are being dishonest and having fun with the alt.

Also, it's upvote shitty takes, not "GivesOpinionOnTakesIDontLike".

 

I'm not siding against your opinions @UpvoteShittyTakesOnly just that using an alt feels kinda cheap.

 

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