Israel/Palestine thread
Think this merits its own thread...
Discuss my fellow 2+2ers..
AM YISRAEL CHAI.
[QUOTE=Crossnerd]Edit: RULES FOR THIS THREAD
Posting guidelines for Politics and Soci...
These are our baselines. We're not reinventing the wheel here. If you aren't sure if something is acceptable to post, its better to ask first. If you think someone is posting something that violates the above guidelines, please report it or PM me rather than responding in kind.
To reiterate some of the points:
1. No personal attacks. This is a broad instruction, but, in general, we want to focus on attacking an argument rather than the poster making it. It is fine to say a post is antisemitic; it is not okay to call someone an antisemite over and over. If you believe someone is making antisemitic posts, report them or PM me. The same goes for calling people "baby killers" and "genocide lovers". You are allowed to argue that an action supports genocide or that the consequences of certain policies results in the death of children, but we are no longer going to be speaking to one another's intentions. It is not productive to the conversation and doesn't further any debate.
2. Racist posts and other bigoted statements that target a particular group or individuals of such groups with derogatory comments are not allowed. This should not need further explanation.
3. Graphic Images need to be in spoilers with a trigger warning.
4. Wishing Harm on other posters will result in an immediate timeout.
5. Genocidal statements such as "Kill 'em all" etc, are no longer permissible in the thread.
If anyone has any questions about the above, please PM me. I don't want a discussion about the rules to derail the content of this thread. If anything needs clarifying, I will do that in this thread.
Please be aware this thread is strictly moderated[/quote]
It was all children. This is a very dark day for the entire world.
The war in the north has begun.
We will see. Starmer and Harris (I guess she is the acting president now?) have already signaled waning support for Israel. Maybe Hezbollah/Iran has correctly calculated Israel will not have the support to truly respond and will be forced to back down.
Hezbollah has communicated to the US that they control the border, and they will attack who they want when they want. And if Israel responds it will be bad news for Israel. Iran has intimated the same.
Islamic propagandists have constructed a fake narrative it was an Israel anti missile battery that hit the soccer field. And it will of course work on their intended audience, who accept any lie at face value which supports their biases (including BBC "journalists")
But obvious the US military has their own intelligence and know it was one of the 40 rockets that Hezbollah shot at the town as part of their attack. So Hezbollah isn't even bothering trying to pull this nonsense with the US. They are just making it clear they are in charge of the situation and they call the shots.
Seems reasonable. Islamists sure seem like great people doing good things for the world.
No-one has calculated that. Netanyahu isn't stopping.
Unfortuanetly it's all bad news for a lot of people including Israelis
No-one has calculated that. Netanyahu isn't stopping.
Unfortuanetly it's all bad news for a lot of people including Israelis
In 2006 Israel gave Hezbollah 18 years of appeasement, where they allowed Hezbollah to blatantly violate the ceasefire and arming the border. This is on top of the US and the rest o the West appeasing IRI and allowing them to arm militias to wreak havoc on the entire MENA. Now a lot of people will pay the price for appeasement.
The narrative is Israel and the West need to make political decisions that appease Islamists to achieve peace. But the reality is that Islamists view political concessions as a weakness to be violently exploited. And appeasement just makes the war worse when the Islamists inevitably attack.
Personally I'm not fior appeasement of terrorist organisations. The focus needs to be on defeating them instead of enabling them
That's political solutions.
https://mrandrewfox.substack.com/p/hezbo...
--This is a guy I follow on Twitter (Jewish British guy with military background FWIW) that does a lot of military assessment type posting. He has his biases as to who the good and bad guys are, but as far as I can tell tries to be honest about actual military capabilities.
He gave his synopsis that Israel wont be able to be militarily victorious against Hezbollah (and Iran's other regional proxies) without significant Western support.
But he doesn't give any insight how Israel is supposed to garner such support. He acknowledges the Iran-Qatar misinformation network is winning the information war in the West, making support less likely.
Dark times.
I have been trying to pount that out to you for ages.
Netanyahu monstrous campaign is also very stupid. Stupid because it is monstrous. It's hemorrhaged support while being a gift to the terrorist organisations.
Appease > ?????????? > defeat
Nobody has figured out the question marks. The terrorists on the other hand have figured out how to exploit appeasement to ensure their own survival.
There is just so much wishcasting. Ideals without the power and strength of will to back them is just sophistry.
Appease > ?????????? > defeat
Nobody has figured out the question marks. The terrorists on the other hand have figured out how to exploit appeasement to ensure their own survival.
There is just so much wishcasting. Ideals without the power and strength of will to back them is just sophistry.
I don’t understand why near term defeat (whatever that means) needs to be a goal. Just going back to something resembling the status quo from before Oct 7 + Israel not having huge lapses in security seems infinitely better than the current situation and makes Israel no less safe in the near term.
I donÂ’t understand why near term defeat (whatever that means) needs to be a goal. Just going back to something resembling the status quo from before Oct 7 + Israel not having huge lapses in security seems infinitely better than the current situation and makes Israel no less safe in the near term.
I think Israelis and Islamists believe the status quo serves Islamists, and they will eventually wear Israel down and destroy it. And because of this, going back to the status quo is perceived as a win for Islamists and a lose for Israelis.
It is very hard for advanced Western nations to mobilize for war and fight wars. I think there is a belief that Israel needs to take advantage of their current mobilization and change the status quo to improve its long term chances of survival.
There is also the psychological factor. There is a long 1400 year history of Muslim Arabs abusing Jews. Lots of murder, massacres, pogroms and genocide. And there has never been any acknowledgement there is anything wrong with this. If anything, it is viewed as a source of pride. The warlord who really got the ball rolling on violently massacring Jews is viewed as the greatest, most perfect man to ever live.
The whole point of having the state of Israel is so Muslim Arabs (and obviously Europeans) cant do stuff like October 7th anymore. Obviously, living in the middle of such a hateful, violent, barbaric part of the world doesn't seem like a great way to create security. But that was the decision that European West and Zionists made before any of us were born, so now we have to live with it.
There is also the part where many Muslims and Jews believe it is holy dirt they should control for superanatural reasons, and we cant really rationally deal with that part of it. We just have to accept it is part of the psychology.
Given the belief the entire point of Israel is to ensure stuff like October 7th (which has happened a lot in the past, in Europe and the Middle East) cant happen anymore, there is a perception that if Hamas could pull off October 7th and get a win from it, then Israel itself is failing; and this will enable Islamists to ramp up their genocidal efforts.
I don’t understand why near term defeat (whatever that means) needs to be a goal. Just going back to something resembling the status quo from before Oct 7 + Israel not having huge lapses in security seems infinitely better than the current situation and makes Israel no less safe in the near term.
This. Put the effort into avoiding security lapses while assuming their will be lapses so having response defenses in place.
Regarding the 'status quo' response. The status quo is gone. It's over whatever anyone does. The future is not rockets that need to be launched near the border. It's cheap AI drones in a quantity and variety that were just at the beginning of. No country is going to stop them being launched. Very high tech counter measures plus political solutions are the only approach for the new 'status quo'. Ukraine is seeing this beginning of this. So is israel with the houthi drones.
Apart from everything else, netanyahu is making the classic mistake of preparing to fight the previous war.
With high profile public rebukes of Israel from Western leaders such as Harris and Starmer, and signals from these leaders they will unconditionally give Hamas whatever they demand; Hamas has basically decided to stop any ceasefire negotiations, calculating the West will force Israel to give in to their maximalist demands.
Israel and the US are in the process of drafting another proposal to send Hamas. But at this point it really is kabuki theatre, and Hamas has already signaled they will reject the proposal before the ink is dry on it yet.
The decisions of the Labour and Democratic govts have really destroyed what little hope for a productive ceasefire there way. Appeasing terrorists and unconditionally giving in to their demands is never a winning strategy. You would think Britain of all countries would have internalized this lesson; but I guess not.
Also reports Blinken is working with the IRI to put pressure on Israel to not respond to the Golan Heights massacre. No pressure being put on Hezbollah at all. They have effectively been given the green light to ramp up their attacks on Israel.
The Israeli Druze community is also very upset at Israel for its perceived appeasement of Islamist violence focused on them. Another unfortunate side effect of appeasement of terrorists you lose allies, especially ones who are disproportionately the recipient of terrorist violence.
If Islamists can attack Druze with impunity while they are under Israeli protection; then why wouldn't the Druze just side with the Islamists, knowing Israel wont respond likewise? In this way Western liberal norms and compassion is weaponized against us.
US has lost a lot of support in Africa and Iraq for this very reason. Russia/Wagner (and Iran in Iraq) has promised to do what the US is unable too; provide security for civilians against Islamists.
Is there any confirmation that these were Israeli Druze that were killed?
You mean when Hezbollah massacred a bunch of children playing soccer? Yes. Of course. Israeli media is showing pictures of their faces front page, while Western and Islamist media is mostly just deflecting and downplaying it even happened at all.
Israeli sent govt officials to the area after, who were harshly criticized by the Druze community for appeasing Islamists and allowing this to happen. Like I said, this isn't a one off. It is just a particularly bad outcome. Islamists view Israeli Druze as soft civilian targets and larget them a lot.
I sometimes forget how Hamas supporting westerners who only follow pro Islamist propaganda live in a (mostly false) information silo and aren't aware of basic reality the rest of us live in.
Were they Israelis? Bc wiki tells me 80% of that town is not Israeli.
Also reports Blinken is working with the IRI to put pressure on Israel to not respond to the Golan Heights massacre. No pressure being put on Hezbollah at all. They have effectively been given the green light to ramp up their attacks on Israel.
The Israeli Druze community is also very upset at Israel for its perceived appeasement of Islamist violence focused on them. Another unfortunate side effect of appeasement of terrorists you lose allies, especially ones who are disproportionately the reci
It bisn't appeasement but is the point even correct
“We Druze don’t leave our homes,” one tells me, echoing a quiet defiance we encounter elsewhere.
When it comes to what happens next, they’re unanimous: they don’t want a wider war.
“The children here, the children in Lebanon, the children in Gaza. They don’t need more war,” another says.
hes probably getting it from a fake quote attributed to a community leader that was circulated.
similarly, there was a fake quote circulated by the anti-Israel side where a community leader said that it was totes Israel interceptor missiles.
Victor, it’s fine to post the photo of the headline but it needs to be accompanied by a link to the actual article for context as headlines can often be inflammatory and misleading on their own.
I don’t mind you reposting with the link.
its just more punishment of the Gazan children. nothing misleading.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-...
If anyone is wondering where this post is coming from, a Lebanese spokesman is arguing that this town is technically in Syria and so it is Syria's obligation to respond (or not) and it is not Israel's place to respond.
Of course this is completely absurd. Even if one wants to accept the narrative this is stolen Syrian land; Israel controls this land and is responsible for the safety and well-being of the inhabitants.
It bisn't appeasement but is the point even correct
The BBC has been very aggressively pushing the narrative that Israel should unilaterally ceasefire and not respond to provocations from Hezbollah. This article is an extension of this general philosophy. It is fine to read BBC, but understand they are not neutral. They have a strong opinion on how things should go, and are pushing this opinion through their journalism.
The BBC has been very aggressively pushing the narrative that Israel should unilaterally ceasefire and not respond to provocations from Hezbollah. This article is an extension of this general philosophy. It is fine to read BBC, but understand they are not neutral. They have a strong opinion on how things should go, and are pushing this opinion through their journalism.
They are not in fact doing that.
