Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Tamas]

I am shocked, SHOCKED to see 10 million of the "pro-Palestinian" crowd turn to an antisemitic triade by Osama fucking Bin Laden to support their "humanitarian" concerns.

[Barrister]

Love to know the full context in *checks notes* 2002 that made comments about "Jewish control of capital" enslaving people okay (Possible context is that at that point Corbyn's comms chief was opinion editor at the Guardian....maybe....)

To be slightly fair this article seems to be quoting the "Letter to the American People" from 2016 or thereabouts.

So maybe it's possible the 2002 letter is not so overtly anti-semitic.

[Admiral Yi]

Love to know the full context in *checks notes* 2002 that made comments about "Jewish control of capital" enslaving people okay (Possible context is that at that point Corbyn's comms chief was opinion editor at the Guardian....maybe....)

I would love to know that too.  So I arse myself to search the Guardian's site and get that same message, but no direction to the contextualized article. 

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GqL97vksSM

Long CBS interview with Netanyahu.

Overall I liked his responses.  He did weasel duck the two state question.

[viper37]

OvB is gonna be pissed off at Netanyahu for committing blood libel at Israel.
Grumbler is going to be angry too.
Yi and Tamas are gonna be so mad.

I'm wondering if you have the self-awareness to understand how badly your stupid takes, telling other people what they will think, is undermining any credibility you have left on this topic.

My position has remained unchanged for 20+ years.
Whatever credibility you assume I have or not is irrelevant.

I believe both groups should have their own state, and I believe the Israeli state has been acting in bad faith because it's been winning and it's goal is to annex the territories and deport the population.

You guy don't want to admit it so long as there is one stateless Palestinian left living there, so what can I say?  Nothing is going to convince you.  Gaza is being closed to Palestinians as we speak.  The West Bank is getting settled by murderous bastards with the support of the IDF and people like OvB and Raz find this totally justifiable while calling me racist.  What kind of credible argument can I have with people like that?

What kind of argument can you have with a Putin supporter that truly believes there is a denazification process going on in Ukraine?  There's no credible argument to bring, there's no logic to bring there.  There's only trolling.

The reality is that Israel will empty Gaza of the Palestinians and then it will return to the WB to complete its work in the total apathy of the rest of the world as it did before.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I believe both groups should have their own state, and I believe the Israeli state has been acting in bad faith because it's been winning and it's goal is to annex the territories and deport the population.

And I think the Palestinians have been acting in bad faith for 75 years--in continually losing wars and expecting to never have to concede territorial losses.

I am unfamiliar with any other scenario in which two sides have fought for specific territory for 75 years, one side that loses every battle, refuses to ever agree to real concessions--and the side that wins every battle agrees to territorial concessions but is held out as the warmonger.

[Valmy]

I think both sides are acting in bad faith, or more specifically I think both sides have a critical enough mass of bad actors that neither can or should be trusted. Which is why the US should not support Israel without some pretty big strings attached. And frankly I don't really see that our support is really needed by them or particularly useful for us anything. Everybody hates the Palestinians, nobody is ever going to do shit for them besides wave flags and chant. The Israelis don't need our help.

Either a one state or two state solution would be great, so long as human rights are equal among all the inhabitants. But under the current circumstances both are impossible. Until that changes I don't really see what there is for the US to do. We cannot be on anybody's side until somebody is on our side. Just like in Syria.

[Jacob]

I don't think it's true that no one does anything for the Palestinians. Plenty of folks are spending money to fuel the Palestinian fight against Israel. It's, of course, in pursuit of their own geopolitical objectives - but they're spending money. I think, too, that there's some spending to prop up Palestinian civilian administration.

Even the flag waving, street protest type folks have on occassion rendered more direct aid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blekingegade_Gang

[Barrister]

I believe both groups should have their own state, and I believe the Israeli state has been acting in bad faith because it's been winning and it's goal is to annex the territories and deport the population.

I mean what can I say?  Israel has repeatedly agreed to a two-state solution.  Whether that was in 1947, 1979, 1993 or whenever.  It's always been the Palestinians who have refused to complete a deal.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I believe both groups should have their own state, and I believe the Israeli state has been acting in bad faith because it's been winning and it's goal is to annex the territories and deport the population.

I mean what can I say?  Israel has repeatedly agreed to a two-state solution.  Whether that was in 1947, 1979, 1993 or whenever.  It's always been the Palestinians who have refused to complete a deal.

Yeah, and FWIW--despite some people's characterization of me, I'm not an Israel shill or entirely against the Palestinians. They have valid beefs, and Israel as the occupying power has "more power" in the situation so probably has to be expected to be more "high minded" than the weaker / vanquished power, to some degree. And the Likud coalition largely is an annexationist one that never intended to pursue the 2SS solution--but on the flipside, part of what empowered Likud was Arafat's shitting on the Oslo process at the 2000 Camp David meetings and the subsequent Intifada. I'm not saying Israel's drift towards more aggressive policies since then was the "right move", but it didn't come from nowhere.

In business they often use the term "A Side / B Side" when talking about deals. Essentially the "A" side of the deal is the side with the most power, the B side is the side with lesser power. Think Wal-Mart negotiating a contract with a midsized company to supply certain goods; the deal is incremental for Wal-Mart, but life changing for the supplier.

Wal-Mart has more cards to play, and the B side is going to have to accept the A side may get to tilt things in its advantage.

To some degree a peace treaty after a war is similar--the side that actually won the war is the A Side, and the B Side's options are going to be making some concessions or trying to continue the war. A key understanding of the conflict is the B side in this conflict has never truly agreed that it has to make concessions, and has opted to continue the war (albeit often times at a low level of simmer.)

I will note few, in fact none I can easily think of, wars in modern times have seen a B side refuse to admit when it has lost and things turn out well for the B side.

[The Brain]

In Swedish, "Gaza" is pronounced the same as "gasa" which means "(to) gas" or "gas!". Demonstrators in a southern Swedish city have been chanting "Gaza Gaza Gaza judarna" (gas gas gas the Jews), causing significant distress to local Jews (and any sane person). Many people refuse to let Oct 7 challenge their support for Gaza, hell what's happening in Sweden makes me question my support for Sweden.

[Barrister]

I will note few, in fact none I can easily think of, wars in modern times have seen a B side refuse to admit when it has lost and things turn out well for the B side.

The Taliban.

[Gups]

I believe both groups should have their own state, and I believe the Israeli state has been acting in bad faith because it's been winning and it's goal is to annex the territories and deport the population.

I mean what can I say?  Israel has repeatedly agreed to a two-state solution.  Whether that was in 1947, 1979, 1993 or whenever.  It's always been the Palestinians who have refused to complete a deal.

Yeah, and FWIW--despite some people's characterization of me, I'm not an Israel shill or entirely against the Palestinians. They have valid beefs, and Israel as the occupying power has "more power" in the situation so probably has to be expected to be more "high minded" than the weaker / vanquished power, to some degree. And the Likud coalition largely is an annexationist one that never intended to pursue the 2SS solution--but on the flipside, part of what empowered Likud was Arafat's shitting on the Oslo process at the 2000 Camp David meetings and the subsequent Intifada. I'm not saying Israel's drift towards more aggressive policies since then was the "right move", but it didn't come from nowhere.

In business they often use the term "A Side / B Side" when talking about deals. Essentially the "A" side of the deal is the side with the most power, the B side is the side with lesser power. Think Wal-Mart negotiating a contract with a midsized company to supply certain goods; the deal is incremental for Wal-Mart, but life changing for the supplier.

Wal-Mart has more cards to play, and the B side is going to have to accept the A side may get to tilt things in its advantage.

To some degree a peace treaty after a war is similar--the side that actually won the war is the A Side, and the B Side's options are going to be making some concessions or trying to continue the war. A key understanding of the conflict is the B side in this conflict has never truly agreed that it has to make concessions, and has opted to continue the war (albeit often times at a low level of simmer.)

I will note few, in fact none I can easily think of, wars in modern times have seen a B side refuse to admit when it has lost and things turn out well for the B side.

Vietnam

[OttoVonBismarck]

I will note few, in fact none I can easily think of, wars in modern times have seen a B side refuse to admit when it has lost and things turn out well for the B side.

The Taliban.

The Taliban never actually lost though.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I believe both groups should have their own state, and I believe the Israeli state has been acting in bad faith because it's been winning and it's goal is to annex the territories and deport the population.

I mean what can I say?  Israel has repeatedly agreed to a two-state solution.  Whether that was in 1947, 1979, 1993 or whenever.  It's always been the Palestinians who have refused to complete a deal.

Yeah, and FWIW--despite some people's characterization of me, I'm not an Israel shill or entirely against the Palestinians. They have valid beefs, and Israel as the occupying power has "more power" in the situation so probably has to be expected to be more "high minded" than the weaker / vanquished power, to some degree. And the Likud coalition largely is an annexationist one that never intended to pursue the 2SS solution--but on the flipside, part of what empowered Likud was Arafat's shitting on the Oslo process at the 2000 Camp David meetings and the subsequent Intifada. I'm not saying Israel's drift towards more aggressive policies since then was the "right move", but it didn't come from nowhere.

In business they often use the term "A Side / B Side" when talking about deals. Essentially the "A" side of the deal is the side with the most power, the B side is the side with lesser power. Think Wal-Mart negotiating a contract with a midsized company to supply certain goods; the deal is incremental for Wal-Mart, but life changing for the supplier.

Wal-Mart has more cards to play, and the B side is going to have to accept the A side may get to tilt things in its advantage.

To some degree a peace treaty after a war is similar--the side that actually won the war is the A Side, and the B Side's options are going to be making some concessions or trying to continue the war. A key understanding of the conflict is the B side in this conflict has never truly agreed that it has to make concessions, and has opted to continue the war (albeit often times at a low level of simmer.)

I will note few, in fact none I can easily think of, wars in modern times have seen a B side refuse to admit when it has lost and things turn out well for the B side.

Vietnam

When did Vietnam lose?