I take it you were old enough to remember apartheid in South Africa. Was your stance then also the same? Would you have felt the same apathy if you were alive in Europe during the 1930s when the Nazis started their systemic persecution of European Jews?
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
That is taking a side. Not only because it is what one of the side wants but also because it is the current status quo.
And I realize that you somehow didn't spot the fact that you took a side but you did and the sad part is that you didn't have to, as you suggested it doesn't affect your life, so nothing should compell you to give up for one side, you could just stick with what is right.
Acoording to that logic it's impossible to be neutral in any conflict. Sorry I disagree. I support neither side.
No it is perfectly possible to remain neutral in a conflict. It's just impossible to do so in this one.
It's quite straightforward, by not taking a side or refusing to hold a stance, you're doing precisely what the Israelis want, therefore inadvertently supporting a status quo which solely benefits them. All the Israelis need is apathy, not your explicit support.
There's a difference between being unwilling and being incapable. You seem to be saying that the people between Hamas and Israel must either cede their land or cede their lives - ethnic cleansing or genocide. October 7th was utterly disgusting but pales in comparison to either proposition.
What I'm saying is Israel and the Palestinians need to settle this themselves. Nothing can be forced from the outside. I would much prefer they would settle things peacefully but it's been obvious for decades that neither side is ready to do that.
Why is this conflict different?
This link will be of interest to you then: IgnoreThread
The BBC need to take a biiig step back and feck their own faces. Disgusting organisation.
You can't be neutral when you specifically give up on the rights of one side. In this particular case you would have to give up on the legitimacy of Israel. Otherwise you are neither neutral nor impartial.
The other option for neutrality is to defend the idea of a two state solution, to defend the rights of both side whether it is realistic or not. And it's easy for us to have that neutral position since we aren't affected on a day to day basis by the difficulty of said position.
This entire conflict was forced from the outside.
What right did I give? How am I capable of giving up another's rights?
Because you have an assymetrical dynamic involving a powerful oppressor that relies on international apathy to carry out it's colonial aspirations, and a helpless, disenfranchised, defenceless native population who's only chance of survival is international pressure to curb the oppressor. You cannot hold a neutral stance when apathy clearly benefits the aggressor.
Like I've said before this is not a conventional 'conflict'.
Yes it was, but that doesn't mean a solution can be forced from the outside.
Have you heard of foreign policy? Did you know the US provides $3 billion to Israel annually in military aid? Are you familiar with the concept of leverage?
Do you how many conflicts in the world are just as asymmetrical? China/Tibet, China/Uyghurs, US/Afghan, Russia/Ukraine... etc. Should take sides in all of them?
On the contrary it can only be solved from the outside.
What incentive does Israel have to stop occupying and ethnically cleansing Palestinians if it currently faces no ramifications or sanctions for doing so?
Likewise what incentive was there for the South African Praetorian government to end it's policy of apartheid if there was no international pressure?
Be honest, are you trolling and wasting everyone time or you are serious and don't understand the topic? Your statement means that you gave up on palestinians right of self determination.
Yep, Clinton used said leverage to broker a deal back in the 90s. Look how that turned out. Even if the US threatened to cut aid I still don't believe the Israel's would stop.
Of course it can, not only because the International community could recognize the existence of a Palestinian state and borders. They also could sanction Israel for the crimes committed against palestinians and observed by the UN for decades, they could avoid to finance and equip IDF.
I don't believe either side will accept a solution forced form the outside. Not long term. It's been tried for litterly decades. But I guess reasonable people can disagree.
You're telling me you don't hold any position on any of those conflicts?
It's not really a valid comparison considering the UK and US aren't publicly supporting or funding/arming any of the aggressors in most those listed examples. In the case of the US/Afghan work it's quite clearly a different situation to the Palestinian one.
Que sera sera...
So, the 13000 dead children are bad guys?
Believe what you will. I'm not capable of giving up another's right. Just stating my opinion that I no longer believe a two state solution is possible. Not saying it shouldn't happen just that I believe it won't.
Yeah, well that would be when to escalate then. They could then actually follow up on the threat if Israel didn't comply and cut the aid. Or they could impose sanctions.
If the US was serious about this, they would have started this process long ago. But Biden is a Zionist (by his own admission), and Netanyahu is playing him like a fiddle. The reluctance of the US to actually do what's right is the reason international pressure is not playing a role in coming to a solution.
Out of interest, considering your 'neutral' stance, if Israel were to succeed with their goals of ethnically cleansing or genociding the Palestinians, and then proceeding to successfully homogenise and colonise the entire territory. Would you accept that reality? Or would you display an iota of regret for having maintained a muted stance while it was unfolding?
Yeah long ago like when Carter broke red a deal in 70s or Clinton in the 90s?
But you didn't give up on the Israeli state? That means you support Israel.
The problem is I don't accept your premise. I don't Israel when commit genocide.
Then why fecking comment?
So your point is, that because things didn't work out in the past, we should stop trying and just let Israel commit war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide until there are no Palestinians left in Gaza and the West Bank?
If hamas were to some how get the upper hand and start winning I would have the same stance.
Saying no such thing, simply saying I want no parts of that conflict
I'm asking what you would do or think if that situation did unfold, and its not beyond the realms of possibility considering we have a situation whereby hundreds of Palestinian civilians are being murdered everyday and you have Israeli politicians parroting (quite openly) genocidal rhetoric.
Not going play the hypethical game based on premise I don't agree with.
What do you disagree with exactly? The fact Israelis are morally incapable of cleansing the Palestinian population?