The Biden Presidency

[Insanity]

How about people who can't vote for a guy supporting genocide because of their conscious and personal morals? Are they also utopian clicktivists with limited experience of the real world?

This whole labeling people who don't vote for biden as opportunistic self righteous utopians who just want to feel smug and superior for those sweet internet feel good points is getting kind of tiring. I hope it's not really that hard to understand that people have personal moral red lines they can't cross and it has nothing to do with feeling superior, but at peace with themselves.

Did I say they are? What is the point of quoting a couple of sentences from a post and then twisting it to suit your narrative?

If you read my post again, and this time the entire post, I am saying that not everyone can live life according to the standards of folks who want a purity test. There is a small minority who think life is simple and people who don't share their narrow view point are X or Y, like the "if you vote for Biden you love genocide". It's more complicated than that. Have a moral red line all you want, don't throw a juvenile tantrum if others think differently.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

You are not really saying it's "more complicated" when you call it "purity test" or say people think "life is simple", you are trivializing their point your view and by extension the thing that is happening.

 

[Beachryan]

You are not really saying it's "more complicated" when you call it "purity test" or say people think "life is simple", you are trivializing their point your view and by extension the thing that is happening.

That's how you see it. The alternative is that the thing that is happening is extremely complicated, difficult, nuanced and can't be reduced to simple statements.

 

[The Corinthian]

That's how you see it. The alternative is that the thing that is happening is extremely complicated, difficult, nuanced and can't be reduced to simple statements.

What’s complicated, difficult, or nuance about one group genociding another?

 

[Insanity]

You are not really saying it's "more complicated" when you call it "purity test" or say people think "life is simple", you are trivializing their point your view and by extension the thing that is happening.

Of course it is a purity test if you put everyone who doesn't agree with your blanket statement in a box. An individual's ultimate decision on who to vote for is more complex than that.

That's how you see it. The alternative is that the thing that is happening is extremely complicated, difficult, nuanced and can't be reduced to simple statements.

Exactly.

 

[Idxomer]

 

[maniak]

Did I say they are? What is the point of quoting a couple of sentences from a post and then twisting it to suit your narrative?

If you read my post again, and this time the entire post, I am saying that not everyone can live life according to the standards of folks who want a purity test. There is a small minority who think life is simple and people who don't share their narrow view point are X or Y, like the "if you vote for Biden you love genocide". It's more complicated than that. Have a moral red line all you want, don't throw a juvenile tantrum if others think differently.

Juvenile tantrum? What?

Anyway, by calling someone's difficult moral decisions "purity tests" and saying they "think life is simple" and have "narrow view points" you're doing exactly what I said you are, so thanks for proving my point. You're devaluing those people's perspectives and only validating those who can be pragmatic enough to vote for biden.

Also it's funny that you talk about twisting words and then replace the word "support" for "love". I know people who vote for biden don't love genocide, that would be ridiculous. But by voting for him, they are indirectly supporting his policy of genocide, regardless of how much they hate it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

What’s complicated, difficult, or nuance about one group genociding another?

Presumably because people might want to judge the future POTUS on more than just his stance on Gaza? Especially when there's zero evidence that the alternative will be any more of a friend to Gaza than Biden (most likely the opposite)

 

[Smores]

What’s complicated, difficult, or nuance about one group genociding another?

You'll find it's always too complicated to actually say why it's complicated.

 

[Beachryan]

What’s complicated, difficult, or nuance about one group genociding another?

If you're asking why the Gazan situation isn't complicated, nuanced or difficult, I'm not really sure what to say.

If you're asking explicitly about the current Israeli actions, off the top of my head here are things that can hold up a ceasefire:
1. Hamas is refusing a ceasefire under current terms
2. There are still hostages that Hamas will not release in exchange for a ceasefire, including non-Israelis
3. Despite what we'd all like, Netanyahu still enjoys some popularity among his voters, and he risks going to jail when the war ends

That's just 3 things.

I think what most people would like is a unilateral ceasefire from Israel. Ie, just stop. But, that is complicated, difficult given the actors involved and basically is a kill order on hostages.

Even defining it as a genocide is going to a take a panel of legal experts months if not years to determine.

None of it is simple.

 

[Hammondo]

If you're asking why the Gazan situation isn't complicated, nuanced or difficult, I'm not really sure what to say.

If you're asking explicitly about the current Israeli actions, off the top of my head here are things that can hold up a ceasefire:
1. Hamas is refusing a ceasefire under current terms
2. There are still hostages that Hamas will not release in exchange for a ceasefire, including non-Israelis
3. Despite what we'd all like, Netanyahu still enjoys some popularity among his voters, and he risks going to jail when the war ends

That's just 3 things.

I think what most people would like is a unilateral ceasefire from Israel. Ie, just stop. But, that is complicated, difficult given the actors involved and basically is a kill order on hostages.

Even defining it as a genocide is going to a take a panel of legal experts months if not years to determine.

None of it is simple.

But that's a lot of whataboutism, really has little to nothing to do with what Israel are doing because they are not really attacking or destroying Hamas.

 

[Beachryan]

But that's a lot of whataboutism, really has little to nothing to do with what Israel are doing because they are not really attacking or destroying Hamas.

You'll have to explain how it's whataboutism to literally bring up the topics being discussed by both sides in the current ceasefire talks, but okay.

I'm guessing the answer that everyone wants to hear is Israel immediately stop, withdraw and write off hostages as a forgone conclusion? Because if so, outside of hoping they 'do the right thing' why would Netanyahu do that? He's not a good person, he's an evil person.

 

[neverdie]

whataboutism

Which part of any of that necessitates that the Biden, or Trump, regime must continue funding Israel's Gazan genocide? 5% of all people murdered or injured is pretty, common sense now, indicative of "genocide". It'll be higher when the count is finally done.

Some people are confused as to whether Israel leads the US or the US leads Israel. The US leads Israel. One very authoritative phonecall by the Biden regime and it's all over.

 

[Kaos]

If you're asking why the Gazan situation isn't complicated, nuanced or difficult, I'm not really sure what to say.

If you're asking explicitly about the current Israeli actions, off the top of my head here are things that can hold up a ceasefire:
1. Hamas is refusing a ceasefire under current terms
2. There are still hostages that Hamas will not release in exchange for a ceasefire, including non-Israelis
3. Despite what we'd all like, Netanyahu still enjoys some popularity among his voters, and he risks going to jail when the war ends

That's just 3 things.

I think what most people would like is a unilateral ceasefire from Israel. Ie, just stop. But, that is complicated, difficult given the actors involved and basically is a kill order on hostages.

Even defining it as a genocide is going to a take a panel of legal experts months if not years to determine.

None of it is simple.

Funny how none of these talking points are remotely complicated when its other nations implicated.

What about Israel's history (long before October 7th) of being a colonialist aggressor? What about the occupation, subjugation and oppression of the Palestinian people (again prior to October 7th), what about the illegal settlement colonisation, what about the violence inflicted on Palestinians in the West Bank (not Gaza), what about the Israelis blocking much needed aid going into Gaza, essentially engineering a man-made famine. You can filibuster the pedantic discussion around genocide terminology all you want, but when you have mounting evidence pointing to Israelis deliberately targeting Palestinians in and out of Gaza, killing aid workers, targeting schools, hospitals, mosques, churches and refugee camps, and Israeli politicians themselves proudly echoing genocidal sentiments, then its hardly a complicated matter. Again if it were another nation (one outside of the US' sphere of influence) that were implicated in these crimes it wouldn't be a matter up for debate.

As for Hamas refusing a ceasefire - do you know what the terms are?

Obfuscating the matter as a complicated one only works to absolve the Israelis of their decades worth of crimes, not just the ones they're committing now.

 

[Hammondo]

You'll have to explain how it's whataboutism to literally bring up the topics being discussed by both sides in the current ceasefire talks, but okay.

I'm guessing the answer that everyone wants to hear is Israel immediately stop, withdraw and write off hostages as a forgone conclusion? Because if so, outside of hoping they 'do the right thing' why would Netanyahu do that? He's not a good person, he's an evil person.

It's whataboutism because it really has little to nothing to do with Israel killing people and destroying Gaza.

 

[4bars]

If you're asking why the Gazan situation isn't complicated, nuanced or difficult, I'm not really sure what to say.

If you're asking explicitly about the current Israeli actions, off the top of my head here are things that can hold up a ceasefire:
1. Hamas is refusing a ceasefire under current terms
2. There are still hostages that Hamas will not release in exchange for a ceasefire, including non-Israelis
3. Despite what we'd all like, Netanyahu still enjoys some popularity among his voters, and he risks going to jail when the war ends

That's just 3 things.

I think what most people would like is a unilateral ceasefire from Israel. Ie, just stop. But, that is complicated, difficult given the actors involved and basically is a kill order on hostages.

Even defining it as a genocide is going to a take a panel of legal experts months if not years to determine.

None of it is simple.

You are discussing the specifics of a ceasefire. That has nothing to do with starving a civilian population when there are solutions, killing and forbiding journalists, medical professionals and others, Blowing up and destroying buildings and infrastructures and sniping kids among other atrocities

That has nothing to do with the war against Hamas and a ceasefire. It is easy preventable...just not fecking do it. And that is why is a genocide, not a conventional war

 

[Beachryan]

Man, wish you'd been around for a few other wars. All one side had to do was not war! It's so easy.

I apologise, I hadn't realised. What the hell has everyone been doing for the last 100 years then?

Now that we've solved this one, can you tell me how to stop climate change too? Just don't climate change! Of course!

Anyway, this all just points me straight back to where I started: those that think stopping this conflict is simple don't understand this conflict, or don't want to. I assume you all also believe that almost every world leader is evil/an idiot too? Why haven't the UK, France, Germany, Norway, India, China dunno, Barbados all announced closing of embassies, imposed trade sanctions and cut Israel off in support of Gazans? They must all be idiots. It's so simple!

 

[4bars]

Man, wish you'd been around for a few other wars. All one side had to do was not war! It's so easy.

I apologise, I hadn't realised. What the hell has everyone been doing for the last 100 years then?

Now that we've solved this one, can you tell me how to stop climate change too? Just don't climate change! Of course!

Anyway, this all just points me straight back to where I started: those that think stopping this conflict is simple don't understand this conflict, or don't want to.

This is not a war

 

[Sweet Square]

If it was so obvious that Isreali response would be this horrific, egregious and destructive before October, then I really have to question Hamas even more.

Israel has never killed this many civilians, has never destroyed at this scale and has never acted this much in the face of the international community. That's why it is such big news. It is atypical, and therefore imo impossible to have predicted.

I believe I posted on here on like 7th or 8th of October that the retribution would be awful, but I genuinely thought it would be a weekend of intense action and maybe 2 or 3k killed. At most. I never could have imagined something like this playing out, I honestly didn't think the Israeli's would allow the far-right elements to succeed in their dreams. Clearly I was wrong.

.

 

[Smores]

Can't answer the question so throws an emotional tantrum nice

 

[Kaos]

Man, wish you'd been around for a few other wars. All one side had to do was not war! It's so easy.

I apologise, I hadn't realised. What the hell has everyone been doing for the last 100 years then?

Now that we've solved this one, can you tell me how to stop climate change too? Just don't climate change! Of course!

Anyway, this all just points me straight back to where I started: those that think stopping this conflict is simple don't understand this conflict, or don't want to.

Good thing we didn't strive to end apartheid in South Africa, or racial segregation in the US then. Far too complicated to reign in the oppressors.

 

[Beachryan]

Good thing we didn't strive to end apartheid in South Africa, or racial segregation in the US then. Far too complicated to reign in the oppressors.

I would strongly, strongly argue that everyone involved in ending those things acknowledged one thing: doing so wasn't simple.

I'm not arguing at all that Israel should stop. It should. I'm not arguing that what it's doing isn't evil. It is. I'm arguing it's a f*cked up situation built up over generations in the most conflicted region on Earth and is hugely complicated. That's all. It's hard.

 

[Sweet Square]

Not worth debating this topic with devoted democrats. It’s waste of everyone time.

 

[Kaos]

I would strongly, strongly argue that everyone involved in ending those things acknowledged one thing: doing so wasn't simple.

I'm not arguing at all that Israel should stop. It should. I'm not arguing that what it's doing isn't evil. It is. I'm arguing it's a f*cked up situation built up over generations in the most conflicted region on Earth and is hugely complicated. That's all. It's hard.

But you wouldn't hesitate to call the Praetorian government in South Africa an apartheid one, and US policies towards African Africans up until the 60s as racist and discriminatory? The road to righting those wrongs were indeed hard-fought tumultuous ones, but its not exactly complicated pinpointing who the culpable aggressors were. Just like it isn't complicated nor dubious to label Israel as a racist, oppressive state, which under many metrics - both anecdotal and attritional suggests that they're carrying out a systemic campaign of violent, collective punishment towards the Palestinian people. Simply dismissing this conflict on an equal footing would be disingenuous to both the reality of what's currently happening, as well as the historical backdrop as to why its happening.

 

[4bars]

I would strongly, strongly argue that everyone involved in ending those things acknowledged one thing: doing so wasn't simple.

I'm not arguing at all that Israel should stop. It should. I'm not arguing that what it's doing isn't evil. It is. I'm arguing it's a f*cked up situation built up over generations in the most conflicted region on Earth and is hugely complicated. That's all. It's hard.

AS complicated it might be, the conclusions of what it should happen are simple. You answered them. Why the nuance on insisting on the obvious complexity of the conflict as a whole? the topic is what should happen NOW. And is genocide and genocides should stop. Anything that prevents the ceasefire it has an ulterior motive of evilness, no excuses

 

[calodo2003]

 

[VorZakone]

Japanese embassy on Biden calling the country ‘xenophobic': ‘It is unfortunate’

During a campaign fundraiser on Wednesday, Biden grouped Japan — a close U.S. ally —with several other countries that he said were struggling economically because of their immigration policies.

“Why is China stalling so badly economically? Why is Japan having trouble? Why is Russia? Why is India?” Biden said during his speech. “Because they’re xenophobic. They don’t want immigrants.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/...after-biden-calls-country-xenophobic-00156034

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Also Hamas has 0 decision power. The only ones that can end this are Israel and the world police and Israel promoter/enabler US. Hamas can't stop this in any way, the other 2 can.

Just wanted to circle back to this point you made because I really disagree with this comment. Hamas is supposed to be the official government of Gaza. As such, they are supposed to act in the best interests of their people. There are some things they could do. They could surrender. They could include giving up their role as official government of Gaza as part of negotiations for a ceasefire. They could offer up the terrorist leaders who ordered the Oct.7 attack for international justice like Sinwar. There are actually things that Hamas would do if their actual interest was in saving the lives of their people. But they aren't doign those things so that combined with their initiation of the large scale terrorist attacks are why I still place their blame as right behind Israel.

Of course this doesn't negate the fact the US should be doing far more to reign in Israel, the anti-semitism bill that just passed is absolutely absurd and has no place being a federal law, and the crackdowns on some college campuses are much too overboard. But these things (what the US should be doing and what Hamas should be doing) aren't mutually exclusive. Hamas does have strategic actions they could take but choose not to (IMO because they do not care how many of their own civilians Israel kills).

 

[berbatrick]

They could offer up the terrorist leaders who ordered the Oct.7 attack for international justice like Sinwar.

back in jan

relevant to the previous page discussion - hamas released a document claiming "faults" were made on ovt 7 due to the "speed of the collapse" of the border army

e - subsequent tweets seem to suggest they are open to a "fair and independent" investigation, possibly from the ICC
not sure how that will go for them!

1. Palestine is a member-state of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and it acceded to its Rome Statute in 2015. When Palestine asked for investigation into Israeli war crimes committed on its territories, it was faced by Israeli intransigence and rejection, and threats to punish the Palestinians for the request to ICC. It is also unfortunate to mention that there were great powers, which claim to be holding values of justice, completely sided with the occupation narrative and stood against the Palestinian moves in the international justice system. These powers want to keep “Israel” as a state above the law and to ensure it escapes liability and accountability.

2. We urge these countries, especially the US administration, Germany, Canada and the UK, if they are meant for justice to prevail as they claim, they are ought to announce their support to the course of the investigation in all crimes committed in occupied Palestine and to give full support for the international courts to effectively do their job.

a slight contrast between the attitude from them and bibi/biden!

 

[4bars]

Just wanted to circle back to this point you made because I really disagree with this comment. Hamas is supposed to be the official government of Gaza. As such, they are supposed to act in the best interests of their people. There are some things they could do. They could surrender. They could include giving up their role as official government of Gaza as part of negotiations for a ceasefire. They could offer up the terrorist leaders who ordered the Oct.7 attack for international justice like Sinwar. There are actually things that Hamas would do if their actual interest was in saving the lives of their people. But they aren't doign those things so that combined with their initiation of the large scale terrorist attacks are why I still place their blame as right behind Israel.

Of course this doesn't negate the fact the US should be doing far more to reign in Israel, the anti-semitism bill that just passed is absolutely absurd and has no place being a federal law, and the crackdowns on some college campuses are much too overboard. But these things (what the US should be doing and what Hamas should be doing) aren't mutually exclusive. Hamas does have strategic actions they could take but choose not to (IMO because they do not care how many of their own civilians Israel kills).

Fair questions but very diluted on the following

- The last elections in Gaza were in 2006. A majority of the population has not voted for them. Last polls before October showed that a vast majority, 2/3 of gaza didn't trust Hamas. As much as they won that elections, Hamas is what it is a terrorist group
- You are asking Hamas to give up the government and/or surrender and I think there are disingenuous proposals. The Gaza government never had much saying on the key governability of the strip and it doesn't exist anymore. It would be symbolic and would not move Israel's needle to stop this genocide. Then you talk about surrender, when you know what would happen to any of them if they do. This option doesn't exist. Maybe I had to mention realistic options? This is not realistic. Sacrificing themselves would not happen like Netanyahu would not stop the war because doesn't want to sacrifice his political career and later, prison. Imagine once life. This war still ongoing in a large part for Netanyahu self-preservation
- The most important point. Israel said whichever negotiations with Hamas, even successful will not include stopping the war, no matter what

Israel is obviously the only one that can stop that. Then, without intel support of US, without munitions sells, and aid package, maybe would still on going, but they would have way less gear to kill, so many more people would be alive. Without US blocking the UN, or without dismissing the last one as non bidding (WTF!), the UN could plan international intervention, because as far as I know, the UN was created explicitly to avoid this situations and is failing like the league of nations.

Hamas? sure have options. None of them realistic to stop nothing

This genocide it has nothing to do with rooting out Hamas, is based on lies. The only reason is revenge and pay back optics (I understand to a certain extense), Netanyahu's survivability and the long term plan of conquering all Palestinian. Hamas is the "useful idiot" of the last part and after what is happening, even surrendering, this genocide has created the new Hamas generation (under Hamas name or another) and the Israel government said that they should kill anyone in Gaza, even kids as they are the next vermin, and they are right, because they created the next monsters

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Fair questions but very diluted on the following

- The last elections in Gaza were in 2006. A majority of the population has not voted for them. Last polls before October showed that a vast majority, 2/3 of gaza didn't trust Hamas. As much as they won that elections, Hamas is what it is a terrorist group
- You are asking Hamas to give up the government and/or surrender and I think there are disingenuous proposals. The Gaza government never had much saying on the key governability of the strip and it doesn't exist anymore. It would be symbolic and would not move Israel's needle to stop this genocide. Then you talk about surrender, when you know what would happen to any of them if they do. This option doesn't exist. Maybe I had to mention realistic options? This is not realistic. Sacrificing themselves would not happen like Netanyahu would not stop the war because doesn't want to sacrifice his political career and later, prison. Imagine once life. This war still ongoing in a large part for Netanyahu self-preservation
- The most important point. Israel said whichever negotiations with Hamas, even successful will not include stopping the war, no matter what

Israel is obviously the only one that can stop that. Then, without intel support of US, without munitions sells, and aid package, maybe would still on going, but they would have way less gear to kill, so many more people would be alive. Without US blocking the UN, or without dismissing the last one as non bidding (WTF!), the UN could plan international intervention, because as far as I know, the UN was created explicitly to avoid this situations and is failing like the league of nations.

Hamas? sure have options. None of them realistic to stop nothing

This genocide it has nothing to do with rooting out Hamas, is based on lies. The only reason is revenge and pay back optics (I understand to a certain extense), Netanyahu's survivability and the long term plan of conquering all Palestinian. Hamas is the "useful idiot" of the last part and after what is happening, even surrendering, this genocide has created the new Hamas generation (under Hamas name or another) and the Israel government said that they should kill anyone in Gaza, even kids as they are the next vermin, and they are right, because they created the next monsters

Most of your points are irrelevant to the point I am making. It doesn't matter if the last elections were in 2006 because Hamas is the de facto Palestinian government in Gaza. If you want to debate whether they are "official" or not based on the date of the elections, that doesn't matter. The point is that Hamas is in control of Gaza from the Palestinian side and yes, they could very much offer total surrender, give up their leaders to international justice. You say I "know what would happen". What would happen is all of Hamas would be jailed or killed. But that option does exist if they actually cared about the population of civilians. It's just more evidence that Hamas wants what is happening to happen and they initiated their string of reactions for exactly this reason, hence why I will always blame them up there with Israel for this.

You assert Netanyahu would continue the war but I consider that point disingenuous because the total surrender is what Israel claims would end the war and would be accompanied by international negotiations. Hamas could negotiate a ceasefire by offering to surrender as their concession in talks that would include other nations like the US that could ensure Israel stick to the negotiations. That would be a stronger strategic choice game theory wise than what they are doing now.

Anyway, we aren't going to agree here ever because I think some of your suggestions are also unrealistic and I disagree with some of other points like that this has "nothing to do with rooting out Hamas" and I also disagree that this will automatically "create a new Hamas generation" because I don't think history backs up that claim (The Bosnian genocide didn't create a new generation of Bosnian terrorists seeking revenge on the Serbs, the Armenian genocide didn't create a generation of Armenian terrorists murdering Turks - although a few very minority Armenian terrorist groups did exist it wasn't at the extent that would be proportionate to what people are claiming now about new generation in Hamas) so hence, we can just go back to agreeing to disagree.

 

[4bars]

Most of your points are irrelevant to the point I am making. It doesn't matter if the last elections were in 2006 because Hamas is the de facto Palestinian government in Gaza. If you want to debate whether they are "official" or not based on the date of the elections, that doesn't matter. The point is that Hamas is in control of Gaza from the Palestinian side and yes, they could very much offer total surrender, give up their leaders to international justice. You say I "know what would happen". What would happen is all of Hamas would be jailed or killed. But that option does exist if they actually cared about the population of civilians. It's just more evidence that Hamas wants what is happening to happen and they initiated their string of reactions for exactly this reason, hence why I will always blame them up there with Israel for this.

You assert Netanyahu would continue the war but I consider that point disingenuous because the total surrender is what Israel claims would end the war and would be accompanied by international negotiations. Hamas could negotiate a ceasefire by offering to surrender as their concession in talks that would include other nations like the US that could ensure Israel stick to the negotiations. That would be a stronger strategic choice game theory wise than what they are doing now.

Anyway, we aren't going to agree here ever because I think some of your suggestions are also unrealistic and I disagree with some of other points like that this has "nothing to do with rooting out Hamas" and I also disagree that this will automatically "create a new Hamas generation" because I don't think history backs up that claim (The Bosnian genocide didn't create a new generation of Bosnian terrorists seeking revenge on the Serbs, the Armenian genocide didn't create a generation of Armenian terrorists murdering Turks - although a few very minority Armenian terrorist groups did exist it wasn't at the extent that would be proportionate to what people are claiming now about new generation in Hamas) so hence, we can just go back to agreeing to disagree.

- Hamas is not in control of anything currently
- Surrender is unrealistic
- Comparisons with Bosnians are...don't know how to qualify it. There was no Bosnian terrorist for starters, Bosnia was created after the war and the responsibles of the genocide were brought to the Hague. If the Palstinian territory would be created and Hamas and Israel government would be brought to The Hague I can guarantee that Hamas would cease to exist
- The same of Armenia, You already said that there were armenian terrorist, but surely there was not 40 decades of an organization like Hamas, you know what? maybe because Armenia was created years after also.

Guess were still exist violence in that region? Kurds. You can qualify them as terrorist, as freedom fighters. Whichever. Guess who has no country? Kurdistan

2 state solution is the only solution but is unrealistic because Israel never had the intention since 1948

And yes, we will agree to disagree

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Then you talk about surrender, when you know what would happen to any of them if they do

Yeah, those Hamas cnuts would rather innocent Palestinians face the wrath of Israel in their stead. Leadership. Foresight. Courage.

 

[4bars]

Yeah, those Hamas cnuts would rather innocent Palestinians face the wrath of Israel in their stead. Leadership. Foresight. Courage.

Agree. That is why is not realistic. After all they are a fecking disgusting coward terrorist group

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Agree. That is why is not realistic. After all they are a fecking disgusting coward terrorist group

Just to clarify here, this goes back to the original talk on blame not on realistic solutions. For example, you advocate going back 1967 borders which is also unrealistic. Just because Hamas won't do something doesn't absolve them of blame for the current disaster we see.

And for the record I do see a version of a two state solution as somewhat realistic but not the version you and others demand such as 67 borders, full retraction of all settlements and a full right to return. For realistic solutions there will have to compromises on demands imo, whether you think it's right or not.

Oh and the Kurds, that's a good point and one unrelated to the existence of Israel. If you really want to trace blame for that, we have to go back to Sykes-Picot and fault England and France in large part for that.

 

[4bars]

Just to clarify here, this goes back to the original talk on blame not on realistic solutions. For example, you advocate going back 1967 borders which is also unrealistic. Just because Hamas won't do something doesn't absolve them of blame for the current disaster we see.

And for the record I do see a version of a two state solution as somewhat realistic but not the version you and others demand such as 67 borders, full retraction of all settlements and a full right to return. For realistic solutions there will have to compromises on demands imo, whether you think it's right or not.

Oh and the Kurds, that's a good point and one unrelated to the existence of Israel. If you really want to trace blame for that, we have to go back to Sykes-Picot and fault England and France in large part for that.

I already said that the 2 state solutions is not realistic either a couple of posts up. Nor 1967 nor any. What it should be realistic is to stop a fecking genocide happening now. That is the core of the discussion, sorry I sidetrack you for a moment (saying that is not realistic)

And funny that you mentioned that the kurds is unrelated to the existence of Israel but you felt very free to go to Bosnia an Armenia, I was just giving you another example after you gave yours. Or only you can give unrelated examples? At least armenian genocide and kurds have something in common. Turks

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I already said that the 2 state solutions is not realistic either a couple of posts up. Nor 1967 nor any. What it should be realistic is to stop a fecking genocide happening now. That is the core of the discussion, sorry I sidetrack you for a moment (saying that is not realistic)

And funny that you mentioned that the kurds is unrelated to the existence of Israel but you felt very free to go to Bosnia an Armenia, I was just giving you another example after you gave yours. Or only you can give unrelated examples? At least armenian genocide and kurds have something in common. Turks

Fair points. Like I said I think a version of 2 state is possible just not what some people want.
And to clarify, your point about the Bosnians and Armenians having a state is a good one and perfectly fair and I agree on your distinctions for the most part. I don't have time right now to dedicate to get into intricacies on how those relate to current Israel-Gazs but I'll try to circle back later.

I didn't mean to invalidate that with the Kurds point, I'm just out and multi tasking and not delineating enough on the different angles we have in play if that makes sense. The Kurds example just reminded me of a longstanding problem I have with a very old, imperialistic and offensive agreement Sykes-Picot which probably also applies to other issues.

 

[4bars]

Fair points. Like I said I think a version of 2 state is possible just not what some people want.
And to clarify, your point about the Bosnians and Armenians having a state is a good one and perfectly fair and I agree on your distinctions for the most part. I don't have time right now to dedicate to get into intricacies on how those relate to current Israel-Gazs but I'll try to circle back later.

I didn't mean to invalidate that with the Kurds point, I'm just out and multi tasking and not delineating enough on the different angles we have in play if that makes sense. The Kurds example just reminded me of a longstanding problem I have with a very old, imperialistic and offensive agreement Sykes-Picot which probably also applies to other issues.

To be honest, I don't even know why we are discussing so much. We probably agree on 95% of the core of any of this conflicts but we keep nitpicking each other. I assume that we agree that what is happening in Gaza has to stop now. That the one that can stop it and has more power to stop it is Israel, second US and last Hamas

And we are deviating the thread too much. I will leave it here agreeing to disagree in minor parts

 

[Sky1981]

There's a saying here that "kiamat" or "end of days" happens when Israel and Palestine made peace.

Religious people, some of them believe that it's an eternal war between the Abraham religion

I dont think I'll ever see an everlasting peace in our lifetime. Even a perfectly divided 2 state solution would only buy time, once the oppressed has recover they they'll want what's theirs. The Israel knew that and they're at the point of no return now.

 

[4bars]

There's a saying here that "kiamat" or "end of days" happens when Israel and Palestine made peace.

Religious people, some of them believe that it's an eternal war between the Abraham religion

I dont think I'll ever see an everlasting peace in our lifetime. Even a perfectly divided 2 state solution would only buy time, once the oppressed has recover they they'll want what's theirs. The Israel knew that and they're at the point of no return now.

I think we will see it in 10 - 20 years. will be peace, trust me. Israel will occupy all the territory and thats the end of all