Jump to content

The Gaza War


gehringer_2

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I think a Yitzhak Rabin or a more mild-mannered leader, Labor or otherwise, would have handled this war differently and may not have acted with the unrestrained aggression that Bibi's IDF has acted with. Well, Sharon as a former military general, may have acted as aggressive as Bibi has. I don't think a different leader would use this war as a political, PR prop to keep themselves in power and rally support behind them. They also may not have funneled Qatari money to prop up Hamas in the first place as Netanyahu did.

Netanyahu needs Hamas as a foil and political fodder to deflect from his authoritarian tendencies and from his attempted judicial coup. I don't think Meir, Rabin, Sharon, Peres, etc. would have propped Hamas up so they could look like a tough guy and use them as a political fodder the way Bibi has. None of those aforementioned Prime Ministers even attempted a judicial coup to install themselves as dictator of Israel and avoid criminal prosecution the way Bibi did either.

All fair args - you can go a step further and speculate that without Netanyahu, history might be so different that this war might never have happened.

What I meant to point out though is that given where things are, security in Gaza is now an issue for Israelis that transcends internal politics. Any more liberal leader would be under just as much pressure to secure the southern border. They may like being in the situation of having to do it less than Netanyahu, but I don't think in the end they would agree to anything much different in terms of Israel's security demands. Where there could of course be a LOT of difference is in a lot of non-security issues that could form the lubricant for any deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

All fair args - you can go a step further and speculate that without Netanyahu, history might be so different that this war might never have happened.

What I meant to point out though is that given where things are, security in Gaza is now an issue for Israelis that transcends internal politics. Any more liberal leader would be under just as much pressure to secure the southern border. They may like being in the situation of having to do it less than Netanyahu, but I don't think in the end they would agree to anything much different in terms of Israel's security demands. Where there could of course be a LOT of difference is in a lot of non-security issues that could form the lubricant for any deal.

I believe Netanyahu supporting/propping up Hamas, through Qatar, backfired on him in the same we the US propping up Saddam against Iran backfired on us in the 1980s/1990s. I can't say for certain whether or not Rabin, Peres, or anyone else would have handled things completely differently than the way Bibi is leading the IDF now. It does feel like though, in the case of Rabin specifically, he may have taken a more tactful approach. Sure, Rabin dislike Arafat and the PLO, but he seemed more apt to work with them, knowing the extremism and radicals that were to the right of the PLO, i.e. Hamas or adjacent groups.

Rabin was even assassinated because of his numerous attempts towards peace initiatives and being more conciliatory towards Arafat and the Palestinians. He wasn't hardline enough for the Israeli right wing. He was thought to have appeased the PLO/Palestinians too much with the Oslo Accords and so paid the ultimate price for it. Netanyahu was directly involved in helping to gin up that angst and anger towards Rabin on the far right in Israel. That doesn't mean the blood of Rabin's murder is fully on Bibi's hands, but Netanyahu inflamed a coalition of people that intern led to political violence.

When I made the point earlier about Netanyahu using Hamas as his foil or political punching bag I should have extrapolated on that more. The far right of Israel, the Likud coalition that brought Bibi to power and has kept him in power, seems to vehemently oppose a two-state solution. Bibi helped with funding Hamas and keeping them in power in Gaza, partly through the Qatari money. By keeping Hamas in Gaza he thus divided the Palestinian leadership with different entities in charge in Gaza and the West Bank.

By propping up Hamas in Gaza he has the foil he needs to speak out against and oppose a two-state solution. His base hates the idea of a Palestinian state and as long as a barbaric regime like Hamas controlled Gaza he can appease his base with his stance against a two-sate solution. How do you expect to have a two-state solution with these crazy terrorists in control in Gaza. Given the brutal actions of Hamas and the October 7th terrorist attack, I think all hope is lost getting Bibi or anyone of the far right coalition to support a two-state solution now. All this is not to say that Bibi could have gotten rid of Hamas from Gaza, no more than we could have gotten rid of Saddam in the 1980s by not funding him against Iran. It is to say though that Bibi didn't have to directly aid in propping them up and it seems like he used Hamas to his political benefit before October 7th. Who knows though. Maybe I'm a liar, maybe I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s got to be some reasonable middle ground between asking Hamas nicely, which won’t work the way a perfect world would like, and genociding Gazans out of existence, which won’t work the way Israel hopes it will.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Tankies have this ass backwards. The ceasefire demands should be on Hamas and not on Israel. Hamas is still launching rockets at Israel. 

And no, this isn't a genocide. 

The genocide is actually the policy towards Israel, and it was laid out in this thread.  The Arabs don't want them there so their goal is to remove them and wipe them out, by any means necessary.  Israel's goal isn't to exterminate Gazans.  Hamas's goal, and that of many of the Arabs in that region, is to exterminate Jews.  They don't consider them legitimate people.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, chasfh said:

There’s got to be some reasonable middle ground between asking Hamas nicely, which won’t work the way a perfect world would like, and genociding Gazans out of existence, which won’t work the way Israel hopes it will.

Right. The dilemma is that Hamas has to go but Israel likely cannot completely eradicate Hamas purely by military action or as an occupying authority without that authority being completely tyrannical.

What you want to happen with the Palestinians and Hamas is what eventually began to happen in Iraq with ISIS: the rise of domestic authority in conjunction with the population's eventual rejection of the ISIS program. Now, I have no idea whether that is even possible given all the things that make the situations different, but that is the kind of mechanism that somehow needs to be driven towards. The problem I see is that you still need a provisional authority, and as bad as things were in Iraq the bulk of the Iraqi population was never as militantly anti-American and the Palesitinians are anti Israeli so if Israeli can't run successfully Gaza because of that, who can? 

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, oblong said:

The genocide is actually the policy towards Israel, and it was laid out in this thread.  The Arabs don't want them there so their goal is to remove them and wipe them out, by any means necessary.  Israel's goal isn't to exterminate Gazans.  Hamas's goal, and that of many of the Arabs in that region, is to exterminate Jews.  They don't consider them legitimate people.

 

It's literally in Hamas charter "from the river to the sea."

Gaza has grown by nearly 1 million in the past 20 years. Israel is really bad at doing a genocide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ewsieg said:

This is not real.  All of you folks get your news from unfettered sources and I've been told time and time again that Biden can't do anything in regards to getting weapons to Ukraine, it's the GOP that's at fault.

Idk if and why he hasn't done the same for Ukraine. 

The Newshour is legit af so you should apologize 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Israel is their ancestorial territory. They were there before they were kicked out and forced to go to Europe. 

You can't go back too far though because then it becomes "Ancient texts" and I guess somehow not valid anymore... kind of like when we have to figure out when a fetus becomes a child, at some point in history it becomes a legitmate stake to land.  But nobody can claim when that is.  It's just a 'I know it when I see it" kind of thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, GoBlue23 said:

So that gives them the right to steal territory and kick people out of their homes?  I'm not following.  

Israelis held Israel for 6,000 years (rough WAG) before Rome kicked them out for challenging Roman authority.

This is NOT Biblically their land, it is HISTORICALLY their land.

It was the Palestinians who took over Israeli homes & businesses and... The modern-day Israelis (since roughly 1850) have simply come home to take back their homes or BUY back their homes from Palestinians (for 100 years PRIOR to 1947).

YEESH... The Palestinians BUILT their Mosque ON TOP OF the most sacred Jewish Temple, in Jerusalem, if you want to talk about THEFT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, GoBlue23 said:

So that gives them the right to steal territory and kick people out of their homes?  I'm not following.  

Just so I understand this correctly:

You are DEMANDING that the United States RETURN California, Texas, and several other states to MEXICO because it wasn't OUR land, it was THEIRS.

We STOLE it.

Do I have this correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Just so I understand this correctly:

You are DEMANDING that the United States RETURN California, Texas, and several other states to MEXICO because it wasn't OUR land, it was THEIRS.

We STOLE it.

Do I have this correct?

I'm fine with returning Texas to be honest. Their senator is familiar with Mexico anyways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GoBlue23 said:

So essentially anything Israel does is okay by you because of what might have been 6,000 years ago?  Does this also apply to other groups or is it only the Jews who get this perk?  

Jews belong in Israel.

It's their land, historically (6,000 years ago...? You don't understand "time" very well at all, then.)

Europe doesn't want them. And murdered them. And kicked them OUT (multiple times, from multiple countries: Spain, England, Germany, etc., etc.).

Which country are you going to ALLOW them to live in, since you want ALL JEWS EXPELLED from Israel?

They are NOT WELCOME in Europe, they are NOT ALLOWED to purchase Palestinian land according to you (which they have done for roughly 175 years (since PRE-1947, FYI), and you want them EXPELLED from Israel. 

So WHERE are you going to allow Israeli Jews to live, if not in their OWN country?

I'd like to know where you are going to ALLOW them to live.

Or do you just want all the Jews dead because.. that would be easier? I'm just asking.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GoBlue23 said:

And yet here you are, a person of European descent living on a continent your ancestors have no rightful claim to.  Shouldn't you pack up and move back to Germany or some other nearby country so you're not occupying stolen land?   Your words and actions seem to be in conflict with each other, don't you think? 

You didn't answer my question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GoBlue23 said:

...  Your words and actions seem to be in conflict with each other, don't you think? 

My words and actions are in perfect alignment because I understand history.

You apparently have a huge black hole in your thinking where it concerns history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GoBlue23 said:

What is the evidence of them being the first settlers in the region?   Seems to me you're using the Hebrew Bible as your source of information and passing it off as historical fact. 

I don't read the bible, I'm an atheist.

I read linguistic and ethnic histories, and historical population migration patterns. Semitic Israelis (Hebrew is Semitic) have been there, genetically and linguistically, for far more than that (6,000 years). So have the Semitic Palestinians. They are actually Semitic cousins, believe it or not. Semitic Iraqis (the non-Kurdish Sunni) are related tribes. Eastern Palestinians (Jordanians) are related tribes. Saudis are related.

Would you like me to start pulling the genetic and linguistic studies that support these facts? Would that help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GoBlue23 said:

Have we already reached the part of the back and forth where you need to start resorting to insults because you can't defend your position?   There is not a single piece of historical evidence that the Jews were the original inhabitants of the region or that they were the only inhabitants.  You are relying on the Jewish version of events found in their silly ass book of fairy tales. 

Wrong.

YOU want the Israelis expelled from Israel, and the land given back to Palestinians because the Israelis "stole" their land back. Even though genetically & linguistically (scientifically PROVEN) they ARE from Israel.

That would be similar to YOU demanding that Texas & California be RETURNED to Mexico because WE STOLE that land from Mexico. Or did you want ALL of us to return to our ancestral homes because ALL of us STOLE this land from the Native peoples?

You didn't answer THAT question and instead asked if I should want to go back to Germany?

You DON'T know the history of Israel. You DON'T know the history of Israelis. You apparently DON'T know that Hebrew is a Semitic language (meaning: FROM Israel...), so YES, you apparently have a seriously large BLACK HOLE in your understanding of history.

NOT an insult.

A simple FACT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...