Gaza War, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, the Palestinians are between a rock and a hard place. Lots of people denounce what’s going on in the West Bank. Unfortunately, few people are going to see terrorism as the answer.

In fact, terrorism heavily contributed to how they got here. A major reason the Labor party fell out of power is due to the second intifada. The Labor party would have stifled these West Bank encroachments. The second intifada shifted Israel to the right, and Likud doesn’t care.

If terrorism isn't the answer and peaceful coexistence isn't the answer, what is the answer?

The second intifada was not peaceful coexistence. The Palestinians should have done everything they could to help the Labor party stay in power. Then get what they can out of a 2 state solution.

Now, it's kind of too late. There are only bad and worse outcomes. Palestinians are at the mercy of Israel.

Israel is an occupying state. The Palestinians have always been at the mercy of Israel and we all know Israel does not have mercy. Israel will not allow a Palestinian state to exist. Though Israel gets butt hurt is anyone questions their existence.

If only the Palestinians were willing to give up all of their demands and accept a statelet on the worst land that Israel could find there would be peace.
Labor was willing to work towards a solution, but Palestinians at the time let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Now we have Likud and they are not nearly as merciful.

Sure, but there would've been peace. Better than what's going on now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now, based on the most recent posts here, the pro-Israel argument is that the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank (none of whom have a vote or a say in Israeli elections) should have done whatever they could have done (which was nothing since, once again, they lack any control over Israeli elections) to bide their time until a less evil (albeit still evil) Israeli leadership emerged to offer them maybe 14 - 17% of the land that was ruthlessly, violently stolen from them. A state without true sovereignty, as Israel would still control their borders, deny them the right of a military to protect themselves, etc.

Yeah, it’s totally difficult to understand why terrorism is the tactic of choice with so many other realistic options out there for the Palestinians, and with the Israeli side operating in good faith every step of the way.

/s

Ridiculous. Arabs are 20% of the Israel population. This logic means the only recourse for republicans in Moco is terrorist activities since 90% voted dem. Your entire post is satire: "nothing", "ruthlessly", "violently".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now, based on the most recent posts here, the pro-Israel argument is that the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank (none of whom have a vote or a say in Israeli elections) should have done whatever they could have done (which was nothing since, once again, they lack any control over Israeli elections) to bide their time until a less evil (albeit still evil) Israeli leadership emerged to offer them maybe 14 - 17% of the land that was ruthlessly, violently stolen from them. A state without true sovereignty, as Israel would still control their borders, deny them the right of a military to protect themselves, etc.

Yeah, it’s totally difficult to understand why terrorism is the tactic of choice with so many other realistic options out there for the Palestinians, and with the Israeli side operating in good faith every step of the way.

/s

Sure, it's understandable, but the terrorism helped discredit the Israeli left and put the right in charge. So instead of dealing with a sympathetic Labor party you're dealing with an uncaring Likud party. Actions do have consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, the Palestinians are between a rock and a hard place. Lots of people denounce what’s going on in the West Bank. Unfortunately, few people are going to see terrorism as the answer.

In fact, terrorism heavily contributed to how they got here. A major reason the Labor party fell out of power is due to the second intifada. The Labor party would have stifled these West Bank encroachments. The second intifada shifted Israel to the right, and Likud doesn’t care.

If terrorism isn't the answer and peaceful coexistence isn't the answer, what is the answer?

The second intifada was not peaceful coexistence. The Palestinians should have done everything they could to help the Labor party stay in power. Then get what they can out of a 2 state solution.

Now, it's kind of too late. There are only bad and worse outcomes. Palestinians are at the mercy of Israel.

Israel is an occupying state. The Palestinians have always been at the mercy of Israel and we all know Israel does not have mercy. Israel will not allow a Palestinian state to exist. Though Israel gets butt hurt is anyone questions their existence.

If only the Palestinians were willing to give up all of their demands and accept a statelet on the worst land that Israel could find there would be peace.
Labor was willing to work towards a solution, but Palestinians at the time let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Now we have Likud and they are not nearly as merciful.

Sure, but there would've been peace. Better than what's going on now.

How easy it is to say “there would’ve been peace” when no historical record exists of Israel’s founders or the modern state interacting peacefully with the Palestinians. Honestly, that statement feels identical to the feeling I experience when pro-Israel posters on this board insist that there would have been zero Palestinian deaths over the past seven months had 10/7 not happened, ignoring the fact that such a period of safety has never occurred in the past 76 years while also expecting the Palestinians to continue wallowing under brutal subjugation conditions along the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, based on the most recent posts here, the pro-Israel argument is that the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank (none of whom have a vote or a say in Israeli elections) should have done whatever they could have done (which was nothing since, once again, they lack any control over Israeli elections) to bide their time until a less evil (albeit still evil) Israeli leadership emerged to offer them maybe 14 - 17% of the land that was ruthlessly, violently stolen from them. A state without true sovereignty, as Israel would still control their borders, deny them the right of a military to protect themselves, etc.

Yeah, it’s totally difficult to understand why terrorism is the tactic of choice with so many other realistic options out there for the Palestinians, and with the Israeli side operating in good faith every step of the way.

/s

Sure, it's understandable, but the terrorism helped discredit the Israeli left and put the right in charge. So instead of dealing with a sympathetic Labor party you're dealing with an uncaring Likud party. Actions do have consequences.

1. Perhaps relatively sympathetic, which in this case might be like saying someone only beats their wife 2-3 times each week instead of daily.

2. If actions have consequences, do those consequences have limits? As in, if you’re a West Bank settler and you repeatedly terrorize Palestinians, should those Palestinians enjoy the same right to impose consequences of their choice on the entire settler community or even the Israeli government since the government actively enables the settlers with policies and actions?

I’m guessing the answer to #2 for most pro-Israel posters is “No”, and therein lies a big part of the problem - this idea of different rules, different expectations, and ultimately, different rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, based on the most recent posts here, the pro-Israel argument is that the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank (none of whom have a vote or a say in Israeli elections) should have done whatever they could have done (which was nothing since, once again, they lack any control over Israeli elections) to bide their time until a less evil (albeit still evil) Israeli leadership emerged to offer them maybe 14 - 17% of the land that was ruthlessly, violently stolen from them. A state without true sovereignty, as Israel would still control their borders, deny them the right of a military to protect themselves, etc.

Yeah, it’s totally difficult to understand why terrorism is the tactic of choice with so many other realistic options out there for the Palestinians, and with the Israeli side operating in good faith every step of the way.

/s

Ridiculous. Arabs are 20% of the Israel population. This logic means the only recourse for republicans in Moco is terrorist activities since 90% voted dem. Your entire post is satire: "nothing", "ruthlessly", "violently".

If you don’t like adjectives and facts, just say so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden withholding bombs because of civilian collateral damage reminds me when LBJ was picking bombing locations during Vietnam. Biden continues to bury himself but too stupid to realize it like Johnson did...

Several US presidents have withheld weapons to Israel at different points. Obama tried and Israel went behind his back.

From 2014.

"After that, US-Israeli relations quietly collapsed. The next three paragraphs from the Journal's story are astonishing — particularly the part where Netanyahu commanded that Obama was "not to ever second-guess me again" about the Gaza war..."

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/6002033/israel-american-weapons-netanyhau

If you don't think this is a problem....

+1

I am with Biden on this.

We can stand iron-clad to support Israel and Israel's right to exist.
We can stand iron-clad in Israel's defense against threats from iran and potentially others
We can stand with Israel as it tries to free hostages and take out Hamas's operational ability.

In my opinion, since December, Israel has acted with impunity and went well beyond "retribution" and had no operational strategy against Hamas.

I get that some may consider this "abandoning" our alley, or liken this to withholding arms to Ukraine. I wholly disagree with those notions. We stand with israel, but not the current leadership. We are arming Israel in its defense, but not in its wanton destruction of millions of human lives.

So in your world when Israel attacks Iran again we should stand by them? No we should not. We should have let Iran bomb the sh#t out of them. The Israelis only understand violence and death.

The last time Israel bombed Iran, it was in response to an Iranian attack. If Iran doesn't attack again, Israel won't retaliate.

If Hamas had returned the hostages, the opportunity for the current campaign to end would increase. But Hamas continues to hold the hostages.

No Israel attacked Iran’s embassy. That is an act of war. Iran was very restrained in their response and the US stopped most of the missiles. Israel shot down 2-3 out of 400. Next time Iran will not telegraph the attack and ballistic missiles with a flight time of 5-8 minutes.

If Hamas had released the hostages nothing would have changed. Israel does not care about the hostages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

After seven months of bombardment that has reduced much of Gaza to rubble, how is it that Hamas has not been cowed into submission? The Israeli army has repeatedly said it has wiped out most of Hamas’s fighters, and that only four battalions are left within Rafah.

I put this to a source with knowledge of Hamas’s military capabilities. “Everywhere where the Israeli army withdraws, Hamas reappears: in the north, in the centre and in the south,” he replied. “Israeli troops occupy the Netzarim Corridor, but their checkpoints there are increasingly vulnerable, which is why they made an offer to withdraw from that line in negotiations.”

Some military experts in Israel agree and are prepared to break ranks. Reserve Major General Yitzhak Barik wrote in Maariv: “Bibi knows very well that we are in a militarily deadlocked situation … After the army took control of 80 percent of the Gaza Strip (except Rafah), it withdrew its forces from it because it had no other forces to replace them. The result was that Hamas returned en masse to all the areas left by the Israeli army and regained control over them.”…

…. There is now a limitless supply of recruits for Hamas - tens of thousands - after seven months of fighting. This wave of wartime support overcomes a bitter history of political competition between Fatah and Hamas.

There is also a limitless supply of explosives. So many explosives have been dropped on Gaza since 7 October that it could take 14 years to clear the territory of unexploded bombs, UN expects said recently. To put that another way: with a failure rate of around 15 percent, the explosive material recovered from bombs and missiles that fail to go off could keep Hamas supplied for a long time to come.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/rafah-attack-defeat-sight-how-can-netanyahu-declare-victory

Just wow! Looks like this Gaza invasion will be both a military and political catastrophe.

Israel has f’ed up again. Wonder how the US will get them out of this mess? Looks like it will cost a lot of money and resources on the part of the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, based on the most recent posts here, the pro-Israel argument is that the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank (none of whom have a vote or a say in Israeli elections) should have done whatever they could have done (which was nothing since, once again, they lack any control over Israeli elections) to bide their time until a less evil (albeit still evil) Israeli leadership emerged to offer them maybe 14 - 17% of the land that was ruthlessly, violently stolen from them. A state without true sovereignty, as Israel would still control their borders, deny them the right of a military to protect themselves, etc.

Yeah, it’s totally difficult to understand why terrorism is the tactic of choice with so many other realistic options out there for the Palestinians, and with the Israeli side operating in good faith every step of the way.

/s

Sure, it's understandable, but the terrorism helped discredit the Israeli left and put the right in charge. So instead of dealing with a sympathetic Labor party you're dealing with an uncaring Likud party. Actions do have consequences.

1. Perhaps relatively sympathetic, which in this case might be like saying someone only beats their wife 2-3 times each week instead of daily.

2. If actions have consequences, do those consequences have limits? As in, if you’re a West Bank settler and you repeatedly terrorize Palestinians, should those Palestinians enjoy the same right to impose consequences of their choice on the entire settler community or even the Israeli government since the government actively enables the settlers with policies and actions?

I’m guessing the answer to #2 for most pro-Israel posters is “No”, and therein lies a big part of the problem - this idea of different rules, different expectations, and ultimately, different rights.

Labor would have tried to curtail the West Bank settlers had they been in charge. Then once an official two state solution is in place the West Bank encroachment likely gets stopped altogether. Likud on the other hand doesn't care and actually encourages expansion.

Sure, the Palestinians would have to trust the Labor party, but what's the alternative?

Fight the Israeli military and get pounded into the ground? Likud has no qualms about it as we can see.

Hope the rest of the world changes its tune? The rest of the world doesn't care beyond symbolic gestures here and there. We just saw Saudi Arabia and Jordan come to Israel's defense against the missile attacks. Clearly, they don't care beyond some surface level sympathy. If they don't care then who does? I guess Iran, but only as pawns to be used.

The Palestinians best bet was with the Labor Party. A Palestinian one state solution was never a realistic goal after 1973. Now we have to hope for some kind of three state solution where someone like Saudi Arabia oversees the rebuilding of Gaza. Who knows what happens to the West Bank. Likely nothing good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, based on the most recent posts here, the pro-Israel argument is that the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank (none of whom have a vote or a say in Israeli elections) should have done whatever they could have done (which was nothing since, once again, they lack any control over Israeli elections) to bide their time until a less evil (albeit still evil) Israeli leadership emerged to offer them maybe 14 - 17% of the land that was ruthlessly, violently stolen from them. A state without true sovereignty, as Israel would still control their borders, deny them the right of a military to protect themselves, etc.

Yeah, it’s totally difficult to understand why terrorism is the tactic of choice with so many other realistic options out there for the Palestinians, and with the Israeli side operating in good faith every step of the way.

/s

Sure, it's understandable, but the terrorism helped discredit the Israeli left and put the right in charge. So instead of dealing with a sympathetic Labor party you're dealing with an uncaring Likud party. Actions do have consequences.

1. Perhaps relatively sympathetic, which in this case might be like saying someone only beats their wife 2-3 times each week instead of daily.

2. If actions have consequences, do those consequences have limits? As in, if you’re a West Bank settler and you repeatedly terrorize Palestinians, should those Palestinians enjoy the same right to impose consequences of their choice on the entire settler community or even the Israeli government since the government actively enables the settlers with policies and actions?

I’m guessing the answer to #2 for most pro-Israel posters is “No”, and therein lies a big part of the problem - this idea of different rules, different expectations, and ultimately, different rights.

Labor would have tried to curtail the West Bank settlers had they been in charge. Then once an official two state solution is in place the West Bank encroachment likely gets stopped altogether. Likud on the other hand doesn't care and actually encourages expansion.

Sure, the Palestinians would have to trust the Labor party, but what's the alternative?

Fight the Israeli military and get pounded into the ground? Likud has no qualms about it as we can see.

Hope the rest of the world changes its tune? The rest of the world doesn't care beyond symbolic gestures here and there. We just saw Saudi Arabia and Jordan come to Israel's defense against the missile attacks. Clearly, they don't care beyond some surface level sympathy. If they don't care then who does? I guess Iran, but only as pawns to be used.

The Palestinians best bet was with the Labor Party. A Palestinian one state solution was never a realistic goal after 1973. Now we have to hope for some kind of three state solution where someone like Saudi Arabia oversees the rebuilding of Gaza. Who knows what happens to the West Bank. Likely nothing good.

Right now, the best hope for Palestinians is an American government that is increasingly hostile to and skeptical of Israel. On the left, the last of the Israel can do no wrong politicians are all geriatric. Eventually, there will be pressure over apartheid and we'll see how Israel fares as an international pariah. It may take decades, but waiting is just as good as any other option open to Palestinians

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, based on the most recent posts here, the pro-Israel argument is that the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank (none of whom have a vote or a say in Israeli elections) should have done whatever they could have done (which was nothing since, once again, they lack any control over Israeli elections) to bide their time until a less evil (albeit still evil) Israeli leadership emerged to offer them maybe 14 - 17% of the land that was ruthlessly, violently stolen from them. A state without true sovereignty, as Israel would still control their borders, deny them the right of a military to protect themselves, etc.

Yeah, it’s totally difficult to understand why terrorism is the tactic of choice with so many other realistic options out there for the Palestinians, and with the Israeli side operating in good faith every step of the way.

/s

Sure, it's understandable, but the terrorism helped discredit the Israeli left and put the right in charge. So instead of dealing with a sympathetic Labor party you're dealing with an uncaring Likud party. Actions do have consequences.

1. Perhaps relatively sympathetic, which in this case might be like saying someone only beats their wife 2-3 times each week instead of daily.

2. If actions have consequences, do those consequences have limits? As in, if you’re a West Bank settler and you repeatedly terrorize Palestinians, should those Palestinians enjoy the same right to impose consequences of their choice on the entire settler community or even the Israeli government since the government actively enables the settlers with policies and actions?

I’m guessing the answer to #2 for most pro-Israel posters is “No”, and therein lies a big part of the problem - this idea of different rules, different expectations, and ultimately, different rights.

Labor would have tried to curtail the West Bank settlers had they been in charge. Then once an official two state solution is in place the West Bank encroachment likely gets stopped altogether. Likud on the other hand doesn't care and actually encourages expansion.

Sure, the Palestinians would have to trust the Labor party, but what's the alternative?

Fight the Israeli military and get pounded into the ground? Likud has no qualms about it as we can see.

Hope the rest of the world changes its tune? The rest of the world doesn't care beyond symbolic gestures here and there. We just saw Saudi Arabia and Jordan come to Israel's defense against the missile attacks. Clearly, they don't care beyond some surface level sympathy. If they don't care then who does? I guess Iran, but only as pawns to be used.

The Palestinians best bet was with the Labor Party. A Palestinian one state solution was never a realistic goal after 1973. Now we have to hope for some kind of three state solution where someone like Saudi Arabia oversees the rebuilding of Gaza. Who knows what happens to the West Bank. Likely nothing good.

Pretty much. Pretty much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, based on the most recent posts here, the pro-Israel argument is that the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank (none of whom have a vote or a say in Israeli elections) should have done whatever they could have done (which was nothing since, once again, they lack any control over Israeli elections) to bide their time until a less evil (albeit still evil) Israeli leadership emerged to offer them maybe 14 - 17% of the land that was ruthlessly, violently stolen from them. A state without true sovereignty, as Israel would still control their borders, deny them the right of a military to protect themselves, etc.

Yeah, it’s totally difficult to understand why terrorism is the tactic of choice with so many other realistic options out there for the Palestinians, and with the Israeli side operating in good faith every step of the way.

/s

Sure, it's understandable, but the terrorism helped discredit the Israeli left and put the right in charge. So instead of dealing with a sympathetic Labor party you're dealing with an uncaring Likud party. Actions do have consequences.

1. Perhaps relatively sympathetic, which in this case might be like saying someone only beats their wife 2-3 times each week instead of daily.

2. If actions have consequences, do those consequences have limits? As in, if you’re a West Bank settler and you repeatedly terrorize Palestinians, should those Palestinians enjoy the same right to impose consequences of their choice on the entire settler community or even the Israeli government since the government actively enables the settlers with policies and actions?

I’m guessing the answer to #2 for most pro-Israel posters is “No”, and therein lies a big part of the problem - this idea of different rules, different expectations, and ultimately, different rights.

Labor would have tried to curtail the West Bank settlers had they been in charge. Then once an official two state solution is in place the West Bank encroachment likely gets stopped altogether. Likud on the other hand doesn't care and actually encourages expansion.

Sure, the Palestinians would have to trust the Labor party, but what's the alternative?

Fight the Israeli military and get pounded into the ground? Likud has no qualms about it as we can see.

Hope the rest of the world changes its tune? The rest of the world doesn't care beyond symbolic gestures here and there. We just saw Saudi Arabia and Jordan come to Israel's defense against the missile attacks. Clearly, they don't care beyond some surface level sympathy. If they don't care then who does? I guess Iran, but only as pawns to be used.

The Palestinians best bet was with the Labor Party. A Palestinian one state solution was never a realistic goal after 1973. Now we have to hope for some kind of three state solution where someone like Saudi Arabia oversees the rebuilding of Gaza. Who knows what happens to the West Bank. Likely nothing good.

They did give up the one state solution at Oslo. Israel notably did not.

They also haven't had much of a chance to trust Labor since Rabin got assasinated by the guys in the current government. Israel radicalized itself since then. Although, yes, the Palestinians screwed up bigtime by not presenting a proper counter offer to Ehud Barak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, the Palestinians are between a rock and a hard place. Lots of people denounce what’s going on in the West Bank. Unfortunately, few people are going to see terrorism as the answer.

In fact, terrorism heavily contributed to how they got here. A major reason the Labor party fell out of power is due to the second intifada. The Labor party would have stifled these West Bank encroachments. The second intifada shifted Israel to the right, and Likud doesn’t care.

The west bank encroachments were illegal according to international law. So basically you are supporting a violation of international law.


Imagine how different our world would be right now if the hard right in Israel hadn't assassinated Rabin.

I'm not supporting the West Bank encroachment, but terrorism isn't the answer. The Palestinians needed to find a way to get the Israel left back in power. Fighting just made Israel shift further to right.

Probably, the best solution was to peacefully protest to garner attention and just endure the encroachment and the crackdowns. Then hope a dove eventually comes to power in Israel and try to work with him. Easier said then done, I know, but it's a more realistic path to peace than 10/7.

What makes Israel's actions again Gaza any different than terrorism? They’ve killed more people. Dismembered many more. Killed way more kids. One can say they were defending themselves but that exact what Hamas explains 10/7.

I agree peaceful protest is a better way but I think both sides need to do that.

[Anonymous]

UNWRA building in Jeruselem set ablaze… remind me who the “terrorists” are again?

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/may/09/unrwa-jerusalem-hq-closed-after-israeli-extremist-arson-attack