Israel/Palestine thread

Yes VIctor, give me an example that a genocide was commeted while losing the war.

If you are referencing for instance Nazi germani, it should be reminded that the genocide occured mostly while they were winning the war, and as a by product of the win. i.e., the hungarian or polish jews would not have been exterminated, if Germany did not manage to conquer said countries.

do you have an example?

any way, we are entering a semantic argument.

the notion of winning or losing wars in subjective and arbitrary.

my two best examples are the vietnam war and the second Israel-Lebanon war.

It can even get people to think netanyahu is a good leader to support

Isreal's risk is beyond the peopel of gaza and lebanon. Of course israel can destroy them and lose. I'm not even sure what you think winning is. Is there a plan beyond the fantasy 'once and for all'

would like to remind you we have a parliamentary system.

the likud party in hole recieved 32 mandates out of 120. and many people who vote likkud, do it despite Netanyahu. my point is that most Israelis do not really support him, but sadly he is the prime minister. before him (and before the few months of Lapid) we had a prime minister who's party recieved 6 mandates out of 120. our system is bad, to say the least.

I do agree that it seems that Netanyahu is operating only by tactical means, with no strategy. I hope he will not manage to become prime minister again, and then we can start working on long term solutions.

im a big supporter of the 2 state solution.

Stop with the personal attacks and calling each other racists and antisemites etc. You all know better by this point.

Posts have been deleted. Infractions have gone out. More will go out if needed.

I know you have a parliamentary system. So do we in the uk and we still largely hold the leader responsible. It is a bit of shorthand for the group supporting the pm as well.

we dont disagree on the your last post but I dont understand how you dont think that could mean destroying gaza/etc and losing. I'm against the tactic of destruction but doing it without a strategy for a polical solution is so dangerous for israel.

No-one has to win. In the absence of a win-win solution then lose-lose may be favorite.

Im not interested in debating who was winning what war at what point in time. its impossible to determine. nor am I gonna debate Germany as thats not allowed in this thread.

but we do have the team genocide losing all these wars:
Japan
USA in Korea
USA in Vietnam
USA in Iraq
Serbia
Rwanda
Yemen

team genocide has won some wars too like in Indonesia and Nicaragua.

grossly disagree with your claims, but agree that there is no point to continue this rabbit hole.

Yes i think there is cleary some semantics.

To me israel losing means it being significantly less secure over the next few decades then it was before. I think there's a high chance of that but even that will be a judgement call (hopefully)

The people of gaza have lost - that's done whatever happens next. Lebanon goign the same way fast. Others may follow

I think that a win for Netanyahu is to ensure the conflict will be passed on to future generations, with no real existential threat for years to come.

his all M.O. was "managing the conflict", not solving it

When the Brits set up concentration camps in South Africa they claimed it was for the protection of the people living there.

I think a win for netanyahu was him staying in power. He has won handsomely.

I think owen Jones would agree with the conflict being passed on to future generations. I think that's a large part of what he means by losing.

Existential threat? The risk has gone up considerably imo.

I think Owen Jones is a grifter

I disagree strongly.

That's a very warped understanding of history.

no its a direct refutation of his assertion about the correlation between genocide and winning wars.

and we can also add the massive war crimes and extermination in Algeria, Kenya, South Africa, India. notice who was doing all this killing btw.

For someone so obsessed with genocide, you seem to know very little about what it actually is.

57 is going to come in and say it was for their protection and they weren't concentration camps.

its a stupid term used by the West to justify all kinds of bullshit. like somehow Russia is doing genocide when they have killed far fewer civilians than in most conflicts. somehow China is doing genocide when no one can give me an accurate count on how many Uyghers have been killed (not many btw).

but when the USA kills millions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Vietnam, Korea these people will argue its not genocide.

who cares? its mass killing of huge amounts of a population intentionally.

We've been over this multiple times. Genocide is not determined by amount killed. For example Putin has a warrant out for his arrest for what could amount to genocide and it has nothing to do with anyone being killed.

for once we agree (somewhat)

the term genocide is redundant and is only used for emotional manipulation and evoke outrage.

the real questions should focus on justification, means, and goals.

it is very telling tough that you choose to bring only examples of "mass killings" involving the USA, and none from muslim countries.

and man, you want to discuss russia (or ussr) on the subject of mass killings? really?

while Guterres visits his conference and shakes his hand all friendly.

the UN is garbage.

I agree the UN is garbage. The real question (which I dont know the answer) is whether we should keep propping it up, with the logic having a garbage UN is likely better than what would likely replace it. Or whether we should pull the plug.

pull the plug and rebuild only with first world countries

unless there is an alternative, the UN has a place, if nothing else to allow somewhat of a direct conversation between countries.