Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Something Funny]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, because terrorism is self-defeating.

You cannot do mass terrorism and then plead moral high ground.

I don't believe that a group punishment of mass extermination is a proportionate response to terrorism.

One side's terrorists are another sides freedom fighters. If Russia completely took over Ukraine tomorrow and the only option Ukrainians had left was partisan warfare/terrorism/sabotage. Would you also be advocating for putting all Ukrainians into concentration camps and/or bombing the hell out of them?

And it is only self defeating if you are weak. If you are a powerful country like the US, or Russia, or China, you can kill and oppress millions of people and face almost no serious reprecussions.

[Bobby_2021]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Radicals will hijack that military. All the people serving in that military will want revenge. How is this not obvious to you?

Yes of course. Palestinian military would "want" to take revenge. Israel would want to take more land.

There will be significant tensions brewing between them. The status quo can be maintained. Even the radicals know the consequences of actually taking action on their revenge. 

There is a serious risk of radicals hijackin the new military, in the worst case scenario.

But you already have an ever more terrible scenario now. Radicals terrorists are the military wing of Palestine. 

When you undermine or overthrow or block a legitimate government, you are going to get jihadists in power. Jihadists will easily overthrow moderates like they did with PLO.

I am not saying you will get Thomas Jefferson in power by having a legitimate govt for Palestine. But there is a chance that the government will be less radical than the current hamas run Palestine.

[Bobby_2021]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, because terrorism is self-defeating.

You cannot do mass terrorism and then plead moral high ground.

If you insist on doing terrorism, developed nations will hunt you down and kill you no matter what moral claims you make. Simple.

Indians did plenty of what you can easily call as terrorism against the colonial British government that did far more damage to them way more than Gandhi ever could. You can do terrorism and still have the moral high ground under appropriate contexts.

If you want independence without a military, what else are you supposed to do? 

Israel has lost the moral high ground. Oct 7 was a genius move by hamas that exposed Israel and even the US and genocidal states. And even IDF openly admitted to not being able to defeat Hamas because it's an idea. And it's true. It's the idea of resistance. People relate to it. Especially the majority of the world who were victims of colonialism. Morality always sides with weak people.

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You can do terrorism and still have the moral high ground under appropriate contexts.

You can do it, but Gaza will be leveled.

[Bobby_2021]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You can do it, but Gaza will be leveled.

Consequences may be slow, but they definitely catch up.

Settler colonialism is also self defeating. Let's see if the state of Israel would exist.

Edited August 11 by Bobby_2021

[Raze]

36 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, because terrorism is self-defeating.

You cannot do mass terrorism and then plead moral high ground.

If you insist on doing terrorism, developed nations will hunt you down and kill you no matter what moral claims you make. Simple.

But israel also killed them when they did peaceful protests, so of course they’ll resort to violence 

[Raze]

52 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Then why they keep shooting thousands of rockets at Israel?

If they wanted peace they wouldn't do that.

The PLO controls the West Bank, not Gaza, they aren’t firing on Israel. They aren’t even defending themselves from settlers who have killed over 500 since oct 7 even though they didn’t do anything in the West Bank.

Egypt hasn’t since the peace deal either.

Hamas fires rockets because Israel keeps Gaza blockaded and in response to various slights such as when Israel assassinated some Hamas soldiers during a ceasefire, or when Israelis raided Al aqsa mosque.

Edited August 11 by Raze

[Raze]

57 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yeah, resisting occupation.

And by "occupation" they mean Israel existing.

Both the PLO and Hamas said they accept a Palestinian state on the 67 borders, Israel would still exist.

the occupation is the blockade of Gaza and the apartheid and settlers in the West Bank.

 

Edited August 11 by Raze

[Bobby_2021]

There are serious developmental issues with the muslims in middleast. 

70% of the issues were caused by western involvement and 30% due to the inherent underdevelopment of the people due to other factors.

The more intense the western intervention, the stronger the resistance. They keep feeding this loop over and over again, expecting different results. 

[Leo Gura]

56 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

70% of the issues were caused by western involvement and 30% due to the inherent underdevelopment of the people due to other factors.

It's more like 10% western involvement and 90% inherent.

You guys have such a hardon for blaming the West.

If an Arab farts in the Middle East it's the West's fault. 

Edited August 11 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

38 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's more like 10% western involvement and 90% inherent.

You guys have such a hardon for blaming the West.

If an Arab farts in the Middle East it's the West's fault. 

I am not blaming anyone. I am merely noticing the underlying societal hivemind reacting to the external dynamism.

Wherever you are living, imagine accomodating an extra 100k people or 500k people.

It will destabilize the social order of that society. 

Uk is literally rioting in the streets because a bunch of immigrants came to live there and the local population is resisting it.

Middleast is forever destabilized because of the contrived influx of jews post world war. 

No society can accomodate extra millions people like this without damaging the societal fabric. Because every society is going to carry it's own baggage, trauma and developmental issues along with it. And the local population will resist it because it's an infringement on their sovereignty.

Perhaps I wouldn't have to "blame" the west if the west didn't poke it's nose in the middleast. 

Edited August 11 by Bobby_2021

[Raze]

51 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's more like 10% western involvement and 90% inherent.

You guys have such a hardon for blaming the West.

If an Arab farts in the Middle East it's the West's fault. 

That’s just silly

Let’s take Afghanistan. In just the past century Russia invaded Afghanistan killing 2 million, the US funneled weapons to extremists to fight them and when they pulled out it resulted in a civil war killing hundreds of thousands, then some of those fighters armed with weapons and ideology majorly funded by the US formed the taliban and took over and the US slapped sanctions on them crushing the economy, then the US invaded in response to 9/11 killing hundreds of thousands more before finally pulling out leaving the taliban in power and slapping them with even more sanctions.

No one is saying they would have had no problems without western involvement, but to suggest all of that just amounted to a small portion of the cause of their current issues is insane.

Iraq is arguably a even bigger example, it had a brutal dictator (who the US propped up for a while) but actually had low crime and a good education system people traveled to study at, then the US turned it into a nightmare.

There are middle eastern or Muslim countries that had less western intervention and they are doing a lot better. 

Edited August 11 by Raze

[Hatfort]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's more like 10% western involvement and 90% inherent.

You guys have such a hardon for blaming the West.

If an Arab farts in the Middle East it's the West's fault. 

It's not that much about the imperfections or the development level of Arabs. It's about the warmongering actions of the West over them that cause literal deaths and destruction they suffer. We rightfully get angry about the terrorist attacks that happen within our borders, but our armies attack them in much higher frequency, and put sanctions on them when they do not do what they are told to. They respond to the harm that's caused to them like we would do. They're level of development, sexism, and other considerations are another interesting discussion, but that's not what's happening here.

In the case of Israel, it's literal colonization, ethnic cleansing, violent population replacement over decades, sometimes slower, sometimes faster, and the current genocide in Gaza is another step in Netanyahu's and Zionists' agenda. They pushed as much as they could so Hamas would eventually attack, which they funded initially, then get the pretext to do what they are doing. What's disappointing is the weak international support for those being butchered, and worse the actual support, mostly from the Biden administration. But I think there is a dissonance between most people in the West, who oppose this, and the more powerful spheres.

However, Hamas is resisting, Israel doesn't have control over Gaza yet. If their soldiers stay, they will continue being killed. It's not on them when Israel deliberately shoots at children or bombs civilians gathering in schools or whatever refuge they can find after their homes have been destroyed, as it's on Hamas the civilians that they killed in October last year, although the ones that Israel killed with the Hannibal directive not. Each side has to own its actions. But, again, when you dig enough, what you find is that Israel started this, and the West was interested in having a piece of this land that was inhabited and invested in it.

[Leo Gura]

You guys sorta have the causality backwards.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason the West started dominating the Middle East in the first place was because the Arab nations were so severely underdeveloped to begin with, making them easy targets?

Edited August 11 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, Raze said:

No one is saying they would have had no problems without western involvement, but to suggest all of that just amounted to a small portion of the cause of their current issues is insane.

I said 10%. That is a big portion.

What's insane is thinking that Arabs would be highly developed if not for the West. You are living in Commie fantasyland. Without the West, Arabs would still be riding around on camels.

Edited August 11 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You guys sorta have the causality backwards.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason the West started dominating the Middle East in the first place was because the Arab nations were so severely underdeveloped to begin with, making them easy targets?

If someone stronger than you beats you up, are you to blame for your injuries because you weren’t strong enough to fight back?

[Bobby_2021]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You guys sorta have the causality backwards.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason the West started dominating the Middle East in the first place was because the Arab nations were so severely underdeveloped to begin with, making them easy targets?

They were easy targets because they couldn't fend off the aggressive military of the US. Development is not the main criteria here. Domination is. 

Developed countries would rather spend money on healthcare and education rather than military industrial complex. 

The US military domination strategy caught them off guard and humanity as a species is back with bullshit wars because of it.

[Raze]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You guys sorta have the causality backwards.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason the West started dominating the Middle East in the first place was because the Arab nations were so severely underdeveloped to begin with, making them easy targets?

But when they develop in response to the onslaught by forming a more war like culture and gaining modern weapons like explosives and machine guns to fight back, suddenly the west turns around and uses that as proof they are still undeveloped because they are being violent. They cannot win in this world view.

Palestinians were pastoral people without an army before the Zionists arrived, they defeated the surrounding Arab countries because their militaries were so small and low tech. Then when they stated developing and becoming more effective and brutal in reaction to the competition Israel and the west turn around and shriek they are dangerous savages and they need to be bombed even more. It’s insane. 

Edited August 11 by Raze

[Raze]

2 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

They were easy targets because they couldn't fend off the aggressive military of the US. Development is not the main criteria here. Domination is. 

Developed countries would rather spend money on healthcare and education rather than military industrial complex. 

The US military domination strategy caught them off guard and humanity as a species is back with bullshit wars because of it.

War itself develops countries. Our modern understanding and health care and education was developed from conquest and war. 

Edited August 11 by Raze

[Hatfort]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

You guys sorta have the causality backwards.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason the West started dominating the Middle East in the first place was because the Arab nations were so severely underdeveloped to begin with, making them easy targets?

Yeah, this is true.

But it shouldn't be a surprise that they yet oppose this domination, which is too often violent. They only want to exist with their good and bad things as we do, and they have the right to do so. We of course can criticize what we don't like from our point of view, but yet we shouldn't impose our ways on them, that's not acceptable. Also, this sometimes causes them, or anyone, to double down as a defense mechanism.

What's fair for the West is to defend ourselves if we were attacked, and even counterattack. But we are not attacked, they are, by our governments and armies.