Israel-Hamas War 2023

[viper37]

It's good that Israel is the good guy.  I'd hate to see the bad guy here.
https://x.com/RamAbdu/status/1837483041360695761

Just look at what happened that kicked off all of this, the October 7th attack. That's the bad guys.

Compared to them and their ilk the Israelis has to do a whole lot worse in order for them to be seen as anything else than the good guys.

And nothing was happening before that?  It was all peaceful in the best of all worlds?  Strange.  I must be misremembering.

I don't think there are any "good guys".  Israel wants new territories at any costs, without the people, and they also want a buffer zone.  They've made their plans clear for Palestine (Gaza and the West Bank) more than once, and all their actions support their words.

[Razgovory]

You said that people of Gaza would not be able to go back, and yet they are still there.

[Iormlund]

They also looked in Putin's eyes and saw something that apparently wasn't bad around 2001

OK, so GWB's assessment of Putin in 2001 is hilariously bad in hindsight. 

Not just hindsight.

By 2001 Putin had already triggered the Second Chechen War by blowing up apartment buildings in Russia and followed up by leveling Grozny.

[viper37]

You said that people of Gaza would not be able to go back, and yet they are still there.

It's a field of ruins and the war is not over yet.

Israel is consolidating its hold on the West Bank by pushing the people out.


You can use Google Translate to read it:
Les colons à l'assault des Terres Palestiniennes

Gaza will be 100% Jewish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachala_(organisation)

Israeli interior minister Ayelet Shaked called them "wonderful youth" and "a real inspiration".^[1]

[Admiral Yi]

The US has also consistently put limits on its aid to Ukraine - giving enough aid so that Ukraine doesn't lose, but not enough so that they win.

Why does this narrative only apply to the US?

[Razgovory]

You made a prediction and it didn't come true.  Now you are going back to victim blaming.  And I really, really don't give a shit about some francophone link.

[Barrister]

The US has also consistently put limits on its aid to Ukraine - giving enough aid so that Ukraine doesn't lose, but not enough so that they win.

Why does this narrative only apply to the US?

Long answer.

First, as OVB pointed out, in terms of absolute dollars, the US gives more aid to Ukraine than anyone else.  So as absolutely fabulous as Poland has been to support Ukraine on a per capita basis, in terms of absolute aid the USA is the champ.

Second - because it's true?  UK and France gave Ukraine Storm Shadow / SCALP missiles without conditions, while the US dithered on giving ATACMS.  Several countries wanted to give Ukraine F-16s but were prevented from doing so by the US.

I remember President Zelensky giving an address to the US Congress at least a year ago - it was one of his first foreign appearances after the "full-scale invasion".  Incidentally - his English has gotten much better over the last couple of years.

Anyways - he graciously thanked the US for all of it's support.  He then said "Is it enough?  Probably not".

So I get the sentiment of "beggars can't be choosers".  Ukraine should be thankful for the support it gets, and I think it has been.

But I think it goes back to my initial point - does the US just want to make sure Ukraine doesn't lose?  Or does it want to see Ukraine win.  Because I sure think it's the former, not the latter.



(and this is definitely not a "well I think my country has done so much better" post.  In terms of dollar value Canada has been respectable in terms of our aid to Ukraine,  It's also 100% true it's mostly due to domestic political concerns of winning the votes of Ukrainian-Canadians like me, rather than some greater geo-political chess match.  But due to decades of under-funding our military we really haven't been able to supply a whole lot of meaningful military aid, instead providing more civil assistance)

[Zoupa]

The US has also consistently put limits on its aid to Ukraine - giving enough aid so that Ukraine doesn't lose, but not enough so that they win.

Why does this narrative only apply to the US?

France, UK, Poland have all ok'd strikes anywhere in russia using their weapons. AFAIK, only the US and Germany have placed restrictions.

The moskals have really bamboozled the US NatSec community something fierce. This is the first war in history where one of the combatants has managed to make it seem like any attack on its territory is a red line.

[Admiral Yi]

Fair enough.  Have those missiles been used in Russia?

[Barrister]

Fair enough.  Have those missiles been used in Russia?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow

Like I said - thank you to the USA for it's continued support of Ukraine.  I know there's voices inside of the US that want to just abandon the place (*sough* Trump *cough*).  That support is immensely important to the continued existence of a free and independent Ukraine.

But the "don't let Ukraine lose" vs "let Ukraine win" is a very real sentiment.

[Razgovory]

Viper, I know you are big on fighting colonization in Palestine, but are you doing the bare minimum in Quebec?

As we fight to free and decolonize Palestine from the river to the sea, I want to remind everyone of the existing grip of colonialism in North America, like with Quebec's bill-96, which is only one example. I still see streets named after genocidal idiots, who for some disturbing reason are still celebrated. Gonna have to petition to change that shit. Repairing the damage is the minimum

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=885140176313477&id=100044525075609&set=a.430699961757503

[The Minsky Moment]

Viper, I know you are big on fighting colonization in Palestine, but are you doing the bare minimum in Quebec?

You already know what the response is going to be. The French settlers in Quebec were the only settlers in the history of world colonialism that properly and fairly obtained rights to the land.  And the natives weren't really natives, they were recent invaders and a bunch of pricks who deserved what they got.

[Zoupa]

[Barrister]

Viper, I know you are big on fighting colonization in Palestine, but are you doing the bare minimum in Quebec?

You already know what the response is going to be. The French settlers in Quebec were the only settlers in the history of world colonialism that properly and fairly obtained rights to the land.  And the natives weren't really natives, they were recent invaders and a bunch of pricks who deserved what they got.

So I'm not going to answer for Viper - he's a big boy and can speak for himself.

But Canada as a "colonial" state is a lot different than many other countries.  Canadian colonialism wasn't like in Africa, or even the US.  The British Crown signed treaties with most First Nations ceding rights to the land to the Crown in exchange for a variety of promises.  Whether the British Crown (and then later the Canadian government) has lived up to those promises is a matter of ongoing debate - but the fact that such disputes are frequently heard in Canadian courts - and that the First Nations often win those cases.

Heck - I like to mention the Dakota people who live in Manitoba.  They do not actually have a treaty with Canada - because they came as a kind of refugees from the US seeking the protection of the British Crown back in the 1800s.  Canada was just seen as a much more welcoming place.

That being said, there's two regions of Canada that do not have treaties.  One of them is BC - apparently as Canada expanded that far west we just... stopped trying.  There have been a handful of "modern" treaties, but there's lots of ongoing lawsuits as well.

The other?  Quebec.  Apparently the French Crown just never bothered back in the day, and after the Seven Years War was concluded and New France was given to Britain it just neve came up somehow.

[Valmy]

Interesting because the French seemed to have much better relations with the First Nations than the British did at the time.