Gaza War, Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hamas is ARAB.

Iran is not.

Hamas is Sunni.

Iran is Shia.

And yet they’ll surrender and just go chill in Iran?!

Are you unaware of Iran’s ties to Hamas?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/world/middleeast/hamas-iran-israel-attack.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Thanks, I know.

It’s 100% a marriage of convenience. Hamas will never surrender, much less go to Iran.

I’m not sure you grasp what a jihadist group is.

The leaders will leave. The rest will stay and get killed, but the money is gonna dry up.

The leaders aren’t in Gaza now. They’re in Qatar. Way more fun than Iran.

Yeah, about that. I think they’re going to find it isn’t as much fun as it used to be?

Why? Israel isn’t going to attack Qatar. Neither is the US. Qatar is helping with hostage negotiations.

Qatar has agreed to revisit its relationship with Hamas operatives on its soil... after the conflict has ended. And by agreed, they don't mean hand over Hamas to US. They mean politely showing them other countries they can hide in with their families. They will fork over intel to the US, to make it even, so Israel and the US can pursue Hamas leadership to the end of the world and the end of time. But Qatar doesn't want an in-house mess, so that's their way out to offend no one.

Qatar is a very interesting country. They were the first in the GCC to embrace Israel in the 90s at a time when other Gulf nations firmly opposed
It .

They are known as the renegades /rebels in the region.

In the 1990s, Qatar allowed an Israeli trade office as the only Israeli outpost in the Gulf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so we’re clear on what would happen if the US withdrew support from Israel:

States that would attack very quickly:

Syria
Lebanon
Iran

Hamas obviously would.

Saudi Arabia would support Israel’s adversaries, despite Iran being Shia and not Arab.

Israel’s 170,000 person army, with 465,000 reserves would go up against 4 countries and Hamas.

I think it’s pretty clear they’d lose. 7 million Israeli Jews would likely die, either during or after the war.

Syria’s military is a wreck due to ISIS and the civil war with the multiple Islamist Jihadi groups. Lebanon doesn’t really exist as a functioning state. The only power Iran can really project is through proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas. Tehran’s conventional military is mostly a joke.

Hezbollah is strong. Iran’s IRGC and Qods Force should not be underestimated. Iran LIVES to eliminate Israel. If given the chance, they’d throw everything they have at it.

Israel knows it’s nothing without the US. That’s why they listen to the US.

Firepower:

Iran: 17
Lebanon: 111
Syria: 64
Saudi Arabia: 22

+ Hamas and Hezbollah

vs

Israel: 18

I think it’s clear Israel would lose that war.

Wow you provided numbers! From where we don’t know.

There you go: https://www.globalfirepower.com/

I’m sure policy makers and warfighters are using that random site to formulate strategy. C’mon man!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd respect the pro-Palestinian contingent far more if they weren't so ignorant and didn't make this whole thing sound like a video game.

The saddest part is when I ask them what their alternative plan is to the current situation and they have nothing.

It’s all just feels. Which is fine, it’s right to feel sad and angry about the situation. I am. They just don’t know enough about the situation to really be able to engage substantively in a discussion about what’s next.

Which is frustrating. Listen, I hate it too. I hate Bibi. But I know enough to have an intelligent discussion about this. They clearly don’t, as they crumble in the face of questions.

Thank the heavens we have intelligent folks like you here to occupy the adult table. Do you even read aloud what you type? People here have endured your inane perseveration re: “to what end” and already Mutombo’d the shit out of it with ideas. Others have ignored you because they know YOUR endgame is to stifle any real discussion because in the long run, you’re pleased as punch with the status quo.

No one has given reasonable ideas, or in fact any ideas.

You use the word reasonable to tip your hand that you’re not willing to change ANYTHING, but you expect not to be laughed at or ignored. OK.

I never said that. But when the only idea is one that would guarantee 7 million Israeli Jews are under the rule of Palestinians, without getting rid of Hamas, well then that’s not so reasonable now is it?

That’s not a solution ANYONE has floated, nor one that I would support. Both sides deserve to live in peaceful co-existence with one another. Anything that threatens that, like Hamas militants / terrorists or parents that teach their children to dehumanize the other side or Bibi or settler militants / terrorists or politicians on both sides who dehumanize the other side or displaced Palestinians who can’t get onboard with a new plan … they can all F off, as far as I’m concerned.

So I have to explain it again:

One state means Palestinians rule because there are more of them. That places all Israeli Jews at risk, especially if Hamas is still around.

Many on this thread have proposed one state.

Which then leaves two options. Either cleanse the Palestinians or a 2 state solution with all that that entails.

Since the cleansing option is, I'm sure you would agree, completely off the table that leaves only one option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so we’re clear on what would happen if the US withdrew support from Israel:

States that would attack very quickly:

Syria
Lebanon
Iran

Hamas obviously would.

Saudi Arabia would support Israel’s adversaries, despite Iran being Shia and not Arab.

Israel’s 170,000 person army, with 465,000 reserves would go up against 4 countries and Hamas.

I think it’s pretty clear they’d lose. 7 million Israeli Jews would likely die, either during or after the war.

Syria’s military is a wreck due to ISIS and the civil war with the multiple Islamist Jihadi groups. Lebanon doesn’t really exist as a functioning state. The only power Iran can really project is through proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas. Tehran’s conventional military is mostly a joke.

Hezbollah is strong. Iran’s IRGC and Qods Force should not be underestimated. Iran LIVES to eliminate Israel. If given the chance, they’d throw everything they have at it.

Israel knows it’s nothing without the US. That’s why they listen to the US.

Firepower:

Iran: 17
Lebanon: 111
Syria: 64
Saudi Arabia: 22

+ Hamas and Hezbollah

vs

Israel: 18

I think it’s clear Israel would lose that war.

Wow you provided numbers! From where we don’t know.

There you go: https://www.globalfirepower.com/

I’m sure policy makers and warfighters are using that random site to formulate strategy. C’mon man!

Did I say they do?

But do you have an alternative source? Or an actual counter to my argument about how the region would declare war on Israel and/or my assertion that there would be a massive force imbalance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd respect the pro-Palestinian contingent far more if they weren't so ignorant and didn't make this whole thing sound like a video game.

The saddest part is when I ask them what their alternative plan is to the current situation and they have nothing.

It’s all just feels. Which is fine, it’s right to feel sad and angry about the situation. I am. They just don’t know enough about the situation to really be able to engage substantively in a discussion about what’s next.

Which is frustrating. Listen, I hate it too. I hate Bibi. But I know enough to have an intelligent discussion about this. They clearly don’t, as they crumble in the face of questions.

Thank the heavens we have intelligent folks like you here to occupy the adult table. Do you even read aloud what you type? People here have endured your inane perseveration re: “to what end” and already Mutombo’d the shit out of it with ideas. Others have ignored you because they know YOUR endgame is to stifle any real discussion because in the long run, you’re pleased as punch with the status quo.

No one has given reasonable ideas, or in fact any ideas.

You use the word reasonable to tip your hand that you’re not willing to change ANYTHING, but you expect not to be laughed at or ignored. OK.

I never said that. But when the only idea is one that would guarantee 7 million Israeli Jews are under the rule of Palestinians, without getting rid of Hamas, well then that’s not so reasonable now is it?

That’s not a solution ANYONE has floated, nor one that I would support. Both sides deserve to live in peaceful co-existence with one another. Anything that threatens that, like Hamas militants / terrorists or parents that teach their children to dehumanize the other side or Bibi or settler militants / terrorists or politicians on both sides who dehumanize the other side or displaced Palestinians who can’t get onboard with a new plan … they can all F off, as far as I’m concerned.

So I have to explain it again:

One state means Palestinians rule because there are more of them. That places all Israeli Jews at risk, especially if Hamas is still around.

Many on this thread have proposed one state.

And many on this thread have explained: the fact that Israel’s very existence is threatened by the prospect of ACTUAL democracy and human rights is not really our problem. It’s Israel’s problem of Israel’s creation.

If you want the land, you have to take the people ON the land. If you don’t want the people, you can’t have the land. If you want the land without the people, you’re going to have to have an apartheid state or genocide, and that’s a problem for the rest of us. I don’t need my tax money contributing to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd respect the pro-Palestinian contingent far more if they weren't so ignorant and didn't make this whole thing sound like a video game.

The saddest part is when I ask them what their alternative plan is to the current situation and they have nothing.

It’s all just feels. Which is fine, it’s right to feel sad and angry about the situation. I am. They just don’t know enough about the situation to really be able to engage substantively in a discussion about what’s next.

Which is frustrating. Listen, I hate it too. I hate Bibi. But I know enough to have an intelligent discussion about this. They clearly don’t, as they crumble in the face of questions.

Thank the heavens we have intelligent folks like you here to occupy the adult table. Do you even read aloud what you type? People here have endured your inane perseveration re: “to what end” and already Mutombo’d the shit out of it with ideas. Others have ignored you because they know YOUR endgame is to stifle any real discussion because in the long run, you’re pleased as punch with the status quo.

No one has given reasonable ideas, or in fact any ideas.

You use the word reasonable to tip your hand that you’re not willing to change ANYTHING, but you expect not to be laughed at or ignored. OK.

I never said that. But when the only idea is one that would guarantee 7 million Israeli Jews are under the rule of Palestinians, without getting rid of Hamas, well then that’s not so reasonable now is it?

That’s not a solution ANYONE has floated, nor one that I would support. Both sides deserve to live in peaceful co-existence with one another. Anything that threatens that, like Hamas militants / terrorists or parents that teach their children to dehumanize the other side or Bibi or settler militants / terrorists or politicians on both sides who dehumanize the other side or displaced Palestinians who can’t get onboard with a new plan … they can all F off, as far as I’m concerned.

So I have to explain it again:

One state means Palestinians rule because there are more of them. That places all Israeli Jews at risk, especially if Hamas is still around.

Many on this thread have proposed one state.

Which then leaves two options. Either cleanse the Palestinians or a 2 state solution with all that that entails.

Since the cleansing option is, I'm sure you would agree, completely off the table that leaves only one option.

Ok. So what basis would you use?

Arabs rejected the UN partition plan.

Arafat didn’t like the Oslo Accords, which entailed 95% of the 1967 borders.

So what’s your plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd respect the pro-Palestinian contingent far more if they weren't so ignorant and didn't make this whole thing sound like a video game.

The saddest part is when I ask them what their alternative plan is to the current situation and they have nothing.

It’s all just feels. Which is fine, it’s right to feel sad and angry about the situation. I am. They just don’t know enough about the situation to really be able to engage substantively in a discussion about what’s next.

Which is frustrating. Listen, I hate it too. I hate Bibi. But I know enough to have an intelligent discussion about this. They clearly don’t, as they crumble in the face of questions.

Thank the heavens we have intelligent folks like you here to occupy the adult table. Do you even read aloud what you type? People here have endured your inane perseveration re: “to what end” and already Mutombo’d the shit out of it with ideas. Others have ignored you because they know YOUR endgame is to stifle any real discussion because in the long run, you’re pleased as punch with the status quo.

No one has given reasonable ideas, or in fact any ideas.

You use the word reasonable to tip your hand that you’re not willing to change ANYTHING, but you expect not to be laughed at or ignored. OK.

I never said that. But when the only idea is one that would guarantee 7 million Israeli Jews are under the rule of Palestinians, without getting rid of Hamas, well then that’s not so reasonable now is it?

That’s not a solution ANYONE has floated, nor one that I would support. Both sides deserve to live in peaceful co-existence with one another. Anything that threatens that, like Hamas militants / terrorists or parents that teach their children to dehumanize the other side or Bibi or settler militants / terrorists or politicians on both sides who dehumanize the other side or displaced Palestinians who can’t get onboard with a new plan … they can all F off, as far as I’m concerned.

So I have to explain it again:

One state means Palestinians rule because there are more of them. That places all Israeli Jews at risk, especially if Hamas is still around.

Many on this thread have proposed one state.

And many on this thread have explained: the fact that Israel’s very existence is threatened by the prospect of ACTUAL democracy and human rights is not really our problem. It’s Israel’s problem of Israel’s creation.

If you want the land, you have to take the people ON the land. If you don’t want the people, you can’t have the land. If you want the land without the people, you’re going to have to have an apartheid state or genocide, and that’s a problem for the rest of us. I don’t need my tax money contributing to that.

Got it. So you’re on team “withdraw US support and let Israel try to fight most of the Arab world plus Iran.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd respect the pro-Palestinian contingent far more if they weren't so ignorant and didn't make this whole thing sound like a video game.

The saddest part is when I ask them what their alternative plan is to the current situation and they have nothing.

It’s all just feels. Which is fine, it’s right to feel sad and angry about the situation. I am. They just don’t know enough about the situation to really be able to engage substantively in a discussion about what’s next.

Which is frustrating. Listen, I hate it too. I hate Bibi. But I know enough to have an intelligent discussion about this. They clearly don’t, as they crumble in the face of questions.

Thank the heavens we have intelligent folks like you here to occupy the adult table. Do you even read aloud what you type? People here have endured your inane perseveration re: “to what end” and already Mutombo’d the shit out of it with ideas. Others have ignored you because they know YOUR endgame is to stifle any real discussion because in the long run, you’re pleased as punch with the status quo.

No one has given reasonable ideas, or in fact any ideas.

You use the word reasonable to tip your hand that you’re not willing to change ANYTHING, but you expect not to be laughed at or ignored. OK.

I never said that. But when the only idea is one that would guarantee 7 million Israeli Jews are under the rule of Palestinians, without getting rid of Hamas, well then that’s not so reasonable now is it?

That’s not a solution ANYONE has floated, nor one that I would support. Both sides deserve to live in peaceful co-existence with one another. Anything that threatens that, like Hamas militants / terrorists or parents that teach their children to dehumanize the other side or Bibi or settler militants / terrorists or politicians on both sides who dehumanize the other side or displaced Palestinians who can’t get onboard with a new plan … they can all F off, as far as I’m concerned.

So I have to explain it again:

One state means Palestinians rule because there are more of them. That places all Israeli Jews at risk, especially if Hamas is still around.

Many on this thread have proposed one state.

And many on this thread have explained: the fact that Israel’s very existence is threatened by the prospect of ACTUAL democracy and human rights is not really our problem. It’s Israel’s problem of Israel’s creation.

If you want the land, you have to take the people ON the land. If you don’t want the people, you can’t have the land. If you want the land without the people, you’re going to have to have an apartheid state or genocide, and that’s a problem for the rest of us. I don’t need my tax money contributing to that.

If you think a government run by jihadis looks anything like democracy we are going nowhere in the conversation. Whack job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd respect the pro-Palestinian contingent far more if they weren't so ignorant and didn't make this whole thing sound like a video game.

The saddest part is when I ask them what their alternative plan is to the current situation and they have nothing.

It’s all just feels. Which is fine, it’s right to feel sad and angry about the situation. I am. They just don’t know enough about the situation to really be able to engage substantively in a discussion about what’s next.

Which is frustrating. Listen, I hate it too. I hate Bibi. But I know enough to have an intelligent discussion about this. They clearly don’t, as they crumble in the face of questions.

Thank the heavens we have intelligent folks like you here to occupy the adult table. Do you even read aloud what you type? People here have endured your inane perseveration re: “to what end” and already Mutombo’d the shit out of it with ideas. Others have ignored you because they know YOUR endgame is to stifle any real discussion because in the long run, you’re pleased as punch with the status quo.

No one has given reasonable ideas, or in fact any ideas.

You use the word reasonable to tip your hand that you’re not willing to change ANYTHING, but you expect not to be laughed at or ignored. OK.

I never said that. But when the only idea is one that would guarantee 7 million Israeli Jews are under the rule of Palestinians, without getting rid of Hamas, well then that’s not so reasonable now is it?

That’s not a solution ANYONE has floated, nor one that I would support. Both sides deserve to live in peaceful co-existence with one another. Anything that threatens that, like Hamas militants / terrorists or parents that teach their children to dehumanize the other side or Bibi or settler militants / terrorists or politicians on both sides who dehumanize the other side or displaced Palestinians who can’t get onboard with a new plan … they can all F off, as far as I’m concerned.

So I have to explain it again:

One state means Palestinians rule because there are more of them. That places all Israeli Jews at risk, especially if Hamas is still around.

Many on this thread have proposed one state.

Your assumption is that Palestinians are simply an existential threat to Israel- this means that the two state solution is ALSO an existential threat to Israel, because a Palestinian state is entitled to have a real military, control over its air space, control over its sea ports, right next door to Israel.

Basically the Palestinian people being alive and in proximity to Israel is a problem. Now, is it MY problem? No. Should America help fix this “problem” for Israel? Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd respect the pro-Palestinian contingent far more if they weren't so ignorant and didn't make this whole thing sound like a video game.

The saddest part is when I ask them what their alternative plan is to the current situation and they have nothing.

It’s all just feels. Which is fine, it’s right to feel sad and angry about the situation. I am. They just don’t know enough about the situation to really be able to engage substantively in a discussion about what’s next.

Which is frustrating. Listen, I hate it too. I hate Bibi. But I know enough to have an intelligent discussion about this. They clearly don’t, as they crumble in the face of questions.

Thank the heavens we have intelligent folks like you here to occupy the adult table. Do you even read aloud what you type? People here have endured your inane perseveration re: “to what end” and already Mutombo’d the shit out of it with ideas. Others have ignored you because they know YOUR endgame is to stifle any real discussion because in the long run, you’re pleased as punch with the status quo.

No one has given reasonable ideas, or in fact any ideas.

You use the word reasonable to tip your hand that you’re not willing to change ANYTHING, but you expect not to be laughed at or ignored. OK.

I never said that. But when the only idea is one that would guarantee 7 million Israeli Jews are under the rule of Palestinians, without getting rid of Hamas, well then that’s not so reasonable now is it?

That’s not a solution ANYONE has floated, nor one that I would support. Both sides deserve to live in peaceful co-existence with one another. Anything that threatens that, like Hamas militants / terrorists or parents that teach their children to dehumanize the other side or Bibi or settler militants / terrorists or politicians on both sides who dehumanize the other side or displaced Palestinians who can’t get onboard with a new plan … they can all F off, as far as I’m concerned.

So I have to explain it again:

One state means Palestinians rule because there are more of them. That places all Israeli Jews at risk, especially if Hamas is still around.

Many on this thread have proposed one state.

And many on this thread have explained: the fact that Israel’s very existence is threatened by the prospect of ACTUAL democracy and human rights is not really our problem. It’s Israel’s problem of Israel’s creation.

If you want the land, you have to take the people ON the land. If you don’t want the people, you can’t have the land. If you want the land without the people, you’re going to have to have an apartheid state or genocide, and that’s a problem for the rest of us. I don’t need my tax money contributing to that.

If you think a government run by jihadis looks anything like democracy we are going nowhere in the conversation. Whack job.

LOL RIGHT?!

Hey guys: Israel is fight democracy lovers!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd respect the pro-Palestinian contingent far more if they weren't so ignorant and didn't make this whole thing sound like a video game.

The saddest part is when I ask them what their alternative plan is to the current situation and they have nothing.

It’s all just feels. Which is fine, it’s right to feel sad and angry about the situation. I am. They just don’t know enough about the situation to really be able to engage substantively in a discussion about what’s next.

Which is frustrating. Listen, I hate it too. I hate Bibi. But I know enough to have an intelligent discussion about this. They clearly don’t, as they crumble in the face of questions.

Thank the heavens we have intelligent folks like you here to occupy the adult table. Do you even read aloud what you type? People here have endured your inane perseveration re: “to what end” and already Mutombo’d the shit out of it with ideas. Others have ignored you because they know YOUR endgame is to stifle any real discussion because in the long run, you’re pleased as punch with the status quo.

No one has given reasonable ideas, or in fact any ideas.

You use the word reasonable to tip your hand that you’re not willing to change ANYTHING, but you expect not to be laughed at or ignored. OK.

I never said that. But when the only idea is one that would guarantee 7 million Israeli Jews are under the rule of Palestinians, without getting rid of Hamas, well then that’s not so reasonable now is it?

That’s not a solution ANYONE has floated, nor one that I would support. Both sides deserve to live in peaceful co-existence with one another. Anything that threatens that, like Hamas militants / terrorists or parents that teach their children to dehumanize the other side or Bibi or settler militants / terrorists or politicians on both sides who dehumanize the other side or displaced Palestinians who can’t get onboard with a new plan … they can all F off, as far as I’m concerned.

So I have to explain it again:

One state means Palestinians rule because there are more of them. That places all Israeli Jews at risk, especially if Hamas is still around.

Many on this thread have proposed one state.

Your assumption is that Palestinians are simply an existential threat to Israel- this means that the two state solution is ALSO an existential threat to Israel, because a Palestinian state is entitled to have a real military, control over its air space, control over its sea ports, right next door to Israel.

Basically the Palestinian people being alive and in proximity to Israel is a problem. Now, is it MY problem? No. Should America help fix this “problem” for Israel? Nope.

My assumption is that Palestinians are absolutely such a threat if Hamas still exists.

But nice to know you’re on the team that is ok with Israel fighting the Arab world plus Iran on its own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd respect the pro-Palestinian contingent far more if they weren't so ignorant and didn't make this whole thing sound like a video game.

The saddest part is when I ask them what their alternative plan is to the current situation and they have nothing.

It’s all just feels. Which is fine, it’s right to feel sad and angry about the situation. I am. They just don’t know enough about the situation to really be able to engage substantively in a discussion about what’s next.

Which is frustrating. Listen, I hate it too. I hate Bibi. But I know enough to have an intelligent discussion about this. They clearly don’t, as they crumble in the face of questions.

Thank the heavens we have intelligent folks like you here to occupy the adult table. Do you even read aloud what you type? People here have endured your inane perseveration re: “to what end” and already Mutombo’d the shit out of it with ideas. Others have ignored you because they know YOUR endgame is to stifle any real discussion because in the long run, you’re pleased as punch with the status quo.

No one has given reasonable ideas, or in fact any ideas.

You use the word reasonable to tip your hand that you’re not willing to change ANYTHING, but you expect not to be laughed at or ignored. OK.

I never said that. But when the only idea is one that would guarantee 7 million Israeli Jews are under the rule of Palestinians, without getting rid of Hamas, well then that’s not so reasonable now is it?

That’s not a solution ANYONE has floated, nor one that I would support. Both sides deserve to live in peaceful co-existence with one another. Anything that threatens that, like Hamas militants / terrorists or parents that teach their children to dehumanize the other side or Bibi or settler militants / terrorists or politicians on both sides who dehumanize the other side or displaced Palestinians who can’t get onboard with a new plan … they can all F off, as far as I’m concerned.

So I have to explain it again:

One state means Palestinians rule because there are more of them. That places all Israeli Jews at risk, especially if Hamas is still around.

Many on this thread have proposed one state.

The West Bank is the one state solution of Israeli and Arabs living side by side and even though it is majority Palestinians but they don’t rule. The ones at risk are not the Israelis in the West Bank. It’s the Palestinians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd respect the pro-Palestinian contingent far more if they weren't so ignorant and didn't make this whole thing sound like a video game.

The saddest part is when I ask them what their alternative plan is to the current situation and they have nothing.

It’s all just feels. Which is fine, it’s right to feel sad and angry about the situation. I am. They just don’t know enough about the situation to really be able to engage substantively in a discussion about what’s next.

Which is frustrating. Listen, I hate it too. I hate Bibi. But I know enough to have an intelligent discussion about this. They clearly don’t, as they crumble in the face of questions.

Thank the heavens we have intelligent folks like you here to occupy the adult table. Do you even read aloud what you type? People here have endured your inane perseveration re: “to what end” and already Mutombo’d the shit out of it with ideas. Others have ignored you because they know YOUR endgame is to stifle any real discussion because in the long run, you’re pleased as punch with the status quo.

No one has given reasonable ideas, or in fact any ideas.

You use the word reasonable to tip your hand that you’re not willing to change ANYTHING, but you expect not to be laughed at or ignored. OK.

I never said that. But when the only idea is one that would guarantee 7 million Israeli Jews are under the rule of Palestinians, without getting rid of Hamas, well then that’s not so reasonable now is it?

That’s not a solution ANYONE has floated, nor one that I would support. Both sides deserve to live in peaceful co-existence with one another. Anything that threatens that, like Hamas militants / terrorists or parents that teach their children to dehumanize the other side or Bibi or settler militants / terrorists or politicians on both sides who dehumanize the other side or displaced Palestinians who can’t get onboard with a new plan … they can all F off, as far as I’m concerned.

So I have to explain it again:

One state means Palestinians rule because there are more of them. That places all Israeli Jews at risk, especially if Hamas is still around.

Many on this thread have proposed one state.

And many on this thread have explained: the fact that Israel’s very existence is threatened by the prospect of ACTUAL democracy and human rights is not really our problem. It’s Israel’s problem of Israel’s creation.

If you want the land, you have to take the people ON the land. If you don’t want the people, you can’t have the land. If you want the land without the people, you’re going to have to have an apartheid state or genocide, and that’s a problem for the rest of us. I don’t need my tax money contributing to that.

If you think a government run by jihadis looks anything like democracy we are going nowhere in the conversation. Whack job.

So basically your position is that Palestinians can NEVER have their full human rights, because they are “jihadis.” Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd respect the pro-Palestinian contingent far more if they weren't so ignorant and didn't make this whole thing sound like a video game.

The saddest part is when I ask them what their alternative plan is to the current situation and they have nothing.

It’s all just feels. Which is fine, it’s right to feel sad and angry about the situation. I am. They just don’t know enough about the situation to really be able to engage substantively in a discussion about what’s next.

Which is frustrating. Listen, I hate it too. I hate Bibi. But I know enough to have an intelligent discussion about this. They clearly don’t, as they crumble in the face of questions.

Thank the heavens we have intelligent folks like you here to occupy the adult table. Do you even read aloud what you type? People here have endured your inane perseveration re: “to what end” and already Mutombo’d the shit out of it with ideas. Others have ignored you because they know YOUR endgame is to stifle any real discussion because in the long run, you’re pleased as punch with the status quo.

No one has given reasonable ideas, or in fact any ideas.

You use the word reasonable to tip your hand that you’re not willing to change ANYTHING, but you expect not to be laughed at or ignored. OK.

I never said that. But when the only idea is one that would guarantee 7 million Israeli Jews are under the rule of Palestinians, without getting rid of Hamas, well then that’s not so reasonable now is it?

That’s not a solution ANYONE has floated, nor one that I would support. Both sides deserve to live in peaceful co-existence with one another. Anything that threatens that, like Hamas militants / terrorists or parents that teach their children to dehumanize the other side or Bibi or settler militants / terrorists or politicians on both sides who dehumanize the other side or displaced Palestinians who can’t get onboard with a new plan … they can all F off, as far as I’m concerned.

So I have to explain it again:

One state means Palestinians rule because there are more of them. That places all Israeli Jews at risk, especially if Hamas is still around.

Many on this thread have proposed one state.

And many on this thread have explained: the fact that Israel’s very existence is threatened by the prospect of ACTUAL democracy and human rights is not really our problem. It’s Israel’s problem of Israel’s creation.

If you want the land, you have to take the people ON the land. If you don’t want the people, you can’t have the land. If you want the land without the people, you’re going to have to have an apartheid state or genocide, and that’s a problem for the rest of us. I don’t need my tax money contributing to that.

If you think a government run by jihadis looks anything like democracy we are going nowhere in the conversation. Whack job.

So basically your position is that Palestinians can NEVER have their full human rights, because they are “jihadis.” Ok.

Umm … you termed Israel’s existence as being threatened by democracy. Care to elaborate? Because otherwise it seems like you’re calling Hamas democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd respect the pro-Palestinian contingent far more if they weren't so ignorant and didn't make this whole thing sound like a video game.

The saddest part is when I ask them what their alternative plan is to the current situation and they have nothing.

It’s all just feels. Which is fine, it’s right to feel sad and angry about the situation. I am. They just don’t know enough about the situation to really be able to engage substantively in a discussion about what’s next.

Which is frustrating. Listen, I hate it too. I hate Bibi. But I know enough to have an intelligent discussion about this. They clearly don’t, as they crumble in the face of questions.

Thank the heavens we have intelligent folks like you here to occupy the adult table. Do you even read aloud what you type? People here have endured your inane perseveration re: “to what end” and already Mutombo’d the shit out of it with ideas. Others have ignored you because they know YOUR endgame is to stifle any real discussion because in the long run, you’re pleased as punch with the status quo.

No one has given reasonable ideas, or in fact any ideas.

You use the word reasonable to tip your hand that you’re not willing to change ANYTHING, but you expect not to be laughed at or ignored. OK.

I never said that. But when the only idea is one that would guarantee 7 million Israeli Jews are under the rule of Palestinians, without getting rid of Hamas, well then that’s not so reasonable now is it?

That’s not a solution ANYONE has floated, nor one that I would support. Both sides deserve to live in peaceful co-existence with one another. Anything that threatens that, like Hamas militants / terrorists or parents that teach their children to dehumanize the other side or Bibi or settler militants / terrorists or politicians on both sides who dehumanize the other side or displaced Palestinians who can’t get onboard with a new plan … they can all F off, as far as I’m concerned.

So I have to explain it again:

One state means Palestinians rule because there are more of them. That places all Israeli Jews at risk, especially if Hamas is still around.

Many on this thread have proposed one state.

Your assumption is that Palestinians are simply an existential threat to Israel- this means that the two state solution is ALSO an existential threat to Israel, because a Palestinian state is entitled to have a real military, control over its air space, control over its sea ports, right next door to Israel.

Basically the Palestinian people being alive and in proximity to Israel is a problem. Now, is it MY problem? No. Should America help fix this “problem” for Israel? Nope.

My assumption is that Palestinians are absolutely such a threat if Hamas still exists.

But nice to know you’re on the team that is ok with Israel fighting the Arab world plus Iran on its own.

I don’t really care WHAT happens to Israel, because it had the time and resources and chose to facilitate the creation of Hamas and support Hamas instead of coming up with solutions.

Israel created all of its current dilemmas. Not my problem.