Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Valmy]

The rapid progress towards benefiting from the wisdom of the Islamic Republic.

Free sex-change operations for homosexuals. Take that decadent imperialist countries! 

The cool kind of conversion therapy.

[Admiral Yi]

Russia and China veto US resolution calling for immediate cease fire and release of all hostages.

[Tamas]

Russia and China veto US resolution calling for immediate cease fire and release of all hostages.

I eagerly await Owen Jones' and Corbyn's condemnation of China and Russia.

[Valmy]

I eagerly await Owen Jones' and Corbyn's condemnation of China and Russia.

Hell Corbyn didn't even condemn Russia for invading Ukraine right?

[OttoVonBismarck]

You don't bite the hand that feeds you, Valmy.

[Josquius]

look at going forward is the root causes of the crime, what secondary responsibility of people failing to do their job was at play, and how we can address these to stop it happening again.

Right, so Israel has concluded the root cause is Hamas' stranglehold on Gaza giving them the resources and opportunities  to put their twisted agenda into action, and they are addressing this by (trying to) ensure Hamas' power is destroyed regardless of the collateral damage.

Just because you don't agree with the conclusions of the RCA it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Yes. The people who fucked up have came to some conclusions that wonderfully reward them with just what they wanted, turning what should have been a damning fuck up for them into a big opportunity - and damn the human comsequences

It's comparable to but considerably  worse than Thatcher with the Falklands. At least she didn't seek to conquer Argentina.... And there weren't British settlers already In Argentina continuing to report to london.

A couple of things: while -again- you obviously have a valid point that own failings need to be reviewed in cases like this, I am not comfortable with your and Viper's primary focus on it. At the end of the day there was a very simple solution to avoid all these deaths on October 7: Palestinians not committing the murders. All other solutions to avoid them are more complex and uncertain in results. Your view on it does feel very much like victim-blaming.

And on the Falklands: I shouldn't be surprised you think it's Thatcher's fault the hapless agency-less Argentinians invaded the island. 

Again you're taking a very right wing view of "fault" here.
Obviously Argentina were the ones who invaded thus at fault.
However at the same time Thatcher's fuck ups amounted to basically leaving an open goal for them. Its really shit how she continues to get let off the hook for this with people instead praising her for the war that a more competent PM wouldn't have had to face (indeed didn't...and that under a PM who is widely not considered particularly competent).

Obviously Hamas and co were the ones who attacked. They were the rapists (literally in many cases). But the actions of the Israeli government in the lead up also seem to tick a lot of boxes for downright criminal negligence.
On a much bigger and more abstract level it also cannot be ignored that Israeli policy over recent decades created the situation that bred this extremism (e.g. their support for Hamas) and if they'd been interested in actual workable peace with the Palestinians this wouldn't have happened.

[Razgovory]

"Right-wing" seems to be Squeeze's go-to insult.  Imagine using your argument in another context.  

"Yeah, the Israeli settler are taking the land but the Palestinians are leaving an open goal for them.  Palestinian terrorism and ethnic hatred has resulted in growing extremism in Israel.  If the Palestinians wanted peace this would not have happen."

[viper37]

"Right-wing" seems to be Squeeze's go-to insult.  Imagine using your argument in another context. 

"Yeah, the Israeli settler are taking the land but the Palestinians are leaving an open goal for them.  Palestinian terrorism and ethnic hatred has resulted in growing extremism in Israel.  If the Palestinians wanted peace this would not have happen."

Ah sure.

If Israelis get attacked, it's because the Palestinians are evil.

If Palestinians get attacked, it's because the Palestinians are evil and deserved it.

If lands get seized, it's the because the Palestinians are evil and deserved to be expelled.

Shorthand: you hate Palestinians as a people.

There's a word for it.  It escapes me.

[viper37]

Israel's largest West Bank seizure during Blinken's visit

They totally deserved it.  If only they weren't Palestinians.

[Razgovory]

"Right-wing" seems to be Squeeze's go-to insult.  Imagine using your argument in another context. 

"Yeah, the Israeli settler are taking the land but the Palestinians are leaving an open goal for them.  Palestinian terrorism and ethnic hatred has resulted in growing extremism in Israel.  If the Palestinians wanted peace this would not have happen."

Ah sure.

If Israelis get attacked, it's because the Palestinians are evil.

If Palestinians get attacked, it's because the Palestinians are evil and deserved it.

If lands get seized, it's the because the Palestinians are evil and deserved to be expelled.

Shorthand: you hate Palestinians as a people.

There's a word for it.  It escapes me.

I'm guessing you didn't read the post I was responding to.  Go ahead and read it and apply you standard to that person.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Israel's largest West Bank seizure during Blinken's visit

They totally deserved it.  If only they weren't Palestinians.

I don't take much issue with it, frankly. The UN offered Israel and Palestine internationally arbitrated borders in 1947. The Arabs said no, we'll just murder all the Jews instead. They got their asses handed to them very, very badly, and began a multi-decade long crybaby fest about losing a war for a small sliver of the Middle East, when the vast majority of the region remains Arab controlled. The 1949 Armistice agreement at the insistence of Egypt quite clearly said the armistice was not any political acknowledgement of any official border by either side. The Arab side made it clear there are no legal borders.

After they again lost in 1967, Israel took more land, and continues to take more land today as the Palestinians continue to wage war.

The way I see it Palestine has chosen to settle the matter with war, and if you play by those rules the country losing the war loses the land. It's called "tough shit."

[grumbler]

Arguing that Palestine chose war when it didn't even exist is silly.  The Palestinians were as much victims of the war between Israel and its Arab neighbors as the Israelis were.

Israel is not blameless in the constant expansion if Israel's borders.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Arguing that Palestine chose war when it didn't even exist is silly.  The Palestinians were as much victims of the war between Israel and its Arab neighbors as the Israelis were.

Israel is not blameless in the constant expansion if Israel's borders.

If it doesn't exist then there is even less reason for people to cry about Israel incorporating land that it controls as part of its country.

[Josquius]

"Right-wing" seems to be Squeeze's go-to insult.  Imagine using your argument in another context. 

Its not an insult, its an accurate descriptor of the view.
As explained the right tend to view crimes as individual actions; here are the rules, follow them or else, that threat should keep everyone in line,
The left meanwhile tends to look at crime as a result of a variety of broader issues; commit a crime and you will be punished, but to stop anyone else doing the same we need to tackle the reasons why the crime was committed in the first place.

"Yeah, the Israeli settler are taking the land but the Palestinians are leaving an open goal for them.  Palestinian terrorism and ethnic hatred has resulted in growing extremism in Israel.  If the Palestinians wanted peace this would not have happen."

The difference there is that Palestine can't not leave an open goal for the Israeli settlers. The second they try to resist in the slightest they get smashed.
Israel is the one with freedom of action in Palestine. It falls on them to be the one to make the big steps to stop the cycle of hate.

The UK with the Falklands on the other hand actively decided to cut the naval budget, withdraw forces from the South Atlantic, and ignore intelligence and very recent history around the threat in the area.
This  was an active choice Thatcher freely made. The Palestinians are more akin to the Falkland islanders in this scenario.

[Admiral Yi]

On a much bigger and more abstract level it also cannot be ignored that Israeli policy over recent decades created the situation that bred this extremism (e.g. their support for Hamas) and if they'd been interested in actual workable peace with the Palestinians this wouldn't have happened.

I like many others here have read the one link about "Israel creating Hamas."  It's a pile of shit.  People have given me money, just like the Quataris did for Gaza, and it did not "breed" any extremism in me.  People have allowed me to take a bus to work and it did not breed any extremism in me.

"If they'd been interested in actual workable peace with the Palestinians this wouldn't have happened."  That's a more interesting proposition than the first. 

Arafat launched the second intifada in response to the Israeli proposal at the Nye River meeting.  Now I'm familiar with the Palestinian objections to the Israeli proposal, which I think we should keep in mind were not an end state but another interim step in the spirit of the Oslo Accords.  Was the second intifada the act of a people who were committed to peaceful coexistence in a separate state of their own?  Ambiguous at best IMO.

Then Mahmoud Abbas takes over the WB after Arafat steps down.  I view him favorably because of my Bretton Woods bias.  He seems to fulfill his end of the bargain.  He's not committing violence against Israelis.  That is when my support for Israel starts to erode.

Hamas wins a majority of parliamentary seat in Gaza, fights a brief civil war with the Palestinian Authority, and starts launching rockets at Israel.  So they're just a radical fringe, right?  Shouldn't derail the peace process, right?  Various talking heads propose the narrative that in voting for Hamas the Gazans weren't endorsing violence but were just tired of corruption.  Most people nod their heads in agreement.  Then we essentially go into a news blackout on the opinions of everyday Palestinians.  There are no elections, either in the West Bank or in Gaza, for people to voice their preferences for peace or war.

Then October 7 comes, Hamas murders 1,200, rapes however many, and abducts 250.  And by an absolute historical miracle the same day a poll is conducted which shows a majority of Palestinians support Hamas.  So it's impossible anymore to sustain the narrative that Palestinians are just peaceful people yearning for a two state solution.

Now you can claim Hamas felt compelled to commit violence in response to the stalled peace process.  Is that a logical inference or is that a statement based on ideology, in other words a statement of faith?  I'm a little murky on the timeline but I believe their charter predates the failure of the peace process.  Do their attacks?  I think so, not sure.