Israel/Palestine thread

Thanks for defining my problem, but I'm an ally to no one regardless who my country is allied with. If it was up to me we'd send exactly $0 to any country in the world. Israel, Palestine(more specifically their leaders), Ukraine and anyone else.

People here go from work straight to the foodbanks who btw, seem to run out of food, yet we send billions in aid to other countries.

Good thing is. So does no one else. Not even the politicians who make all these wise decisions for us.

You have a right to make your point when the relationship is made, or re-assessed.

Once the elected leaders decide though, you have no right to disagree, in war you have no right to think the enemy is actually nice. And it applies for wars your allies are in as well.

You are part of a community that democratically decided that Israel is our ally. YOU CANNOT DECIDE ON YOUR OWN ON THIS, it is not your right, not your freedom, the country decides allies and enemies and you comply in full or are a traitor to your country.

Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the US government and if you are american you don't have a right to disagree on who are american enemies. Same applies to neonazists and stuff on the right that are friendly with Putin ofc. Enemies and allies of a country aren't individual freedom considerations. Your opinion matters in elections, and once elected leaders are there, their choice IS YOUR CHOICE and you have no freedom to disagree until the next election.

That is unless you leave the country and renounce your citizenship, that's still your freedom.

This is incompatible with civil society.

Judging people for killing tens of thousands of people and making millions homeless is hardly a "why don't you step in their shoes" scenario.

Also, I've been to Israel twice. It's a great place. I'd love to take my kids there over the West Bank or any Arab countries, but Israel being a great place doesn't legitimize its existence as is. Jews aren't the only people who live in the Israel-Palestinian region. And as long as they reject a more plural society, they're going to have an antagonistic relationship with Palestinans.

Hell, it might be eternally antagonistic because of anti-semitism, but that doesn't justify apartheid. It didn't in South Africa. It doesn't in Israel.

I've been to SA three times in the last 20 years. I'm not utopian. I'm saying that when SA was forced to figure stuff out on their own, they began to heal out of mutual self-interest. It still sucks there for a lot of people. Racism still exists. There are still whites-only establishments and white nationalist music is a vibrant genre there.

Just as it will take multiple generations for something just to form in SA, it will take such in Israel-Palestine. Why not start now by stopping payment on the checks and killing machines?

I've said multiple times itt that I support the extermination of Hamas. Just not by any means necessary. I reject funding a belligerent country that will create blowback that kills Americans. If that makes me a traitor to some dude who doesn't understand the Consitution, I don't care.

The purpose of the 1A is to preserve the right to disagree with my country. If you don't get it, you just don't get it.

That's not remotely true. But when someone is claiming that America has no place in the Israel/Palestine conflict, their ignorance is shown brightly.

Coming from a family w/ many politicians in it, and having been around politicians all my life, I can say most are extremely well-educated and understand these issues. I know very little in comparison, but I have a pedestrian understanding of geopolitics and history, simply because I have a passion for it.

For someone coming from square one, with no real understanding, I'd recommend starting w/ Z.D Brzezinski's, "The grand Chessboard". It's an older book now, but the issues at play still hold, and it's well explained from someone who spent his life in geopolitics.

Right. You don’t think KDR matters. You feel equally about both.

America killed all the native Americans whose land America stole

Israel is killing all of the native Palestinians whose land Israel stole

So I’m asking you why you think Oct 7 is bad, if you think every thing else was equal

The rockets aren’t random. They are fighting to get their land back

It's an incredible thought experiment. I'll give you that. Wish I could ask Germans resisting Nazism how they feel about the fact that Luciom considers them traitors to their own country.

Yes, it's precisely that. You're literally not understanding anything I said.

How many people did America kill in Iraq and Afghanistan after losing 2996 people on 9/11?

Answer: over 4.5 million.

Was it justified? What is the appropriate response in order to deter more attacks? Do you think you or I are qualified to give that answer? If not, what makes you qualified to say what the appropriate relation is on Israel's side? I plead ignorance... you tell me, since you seem to know more. Should it be an equal amount? Will that prevent attacks? Should they not respond at all?

Hamas has american hostages RIGHT NOW (unless they are lying and they are dead already). Americans in the area risk terrorist attacks as long as anyone like hamas is allowed to exist.

Exterminating the totality of islamic terrorists worldwide protect americans, obviously.

1a doesn't allow to help enemies in war at all actually

Except you missed the DEMOCRATICALLY in my statement.

Try again

It’s over like 2 million maybe.

Not justified. Appropriate response was to engage in more diplomacy and stop bombing brown kids. I think I am more qualified than you are to answer that. Given that I used to be a professional soldier.

How informed someone is doesn’t mean their argument is better or worse than yours.

The response shouldnt be an equal amount. That’s unethical Fighting back makes more attacks, this is called blowback.

They should not respond with military aggression.

Of course, invading Iraq wasn't justified. They had nothing to do with 9/11. That's a non-sequitur.

As for Afghanistan, counter-terror missions would certainly be justified. Counterinsurgency, no.

If you want my credentials, I've taught IR for 15 years, but I have access to the same information as anyone else. My qualifications don't matter.

I've said numerous times itt that I wouldn't oppose counterinsurgency in Gaza. That the shock and awe collective punishment isn't just immoral but dangerous to Israeli and American citizens. COIN the only repairable solution at this point. Israel broke it. Israel bought it. It's on Israel to rebuild Gaza, while terminating Hamas. If you have one without the other, they're just gonna get more terrorism as a result.

Now, if you believe that Islamic terrorism from Gaza is a fait accompli because of inevitable perpetual antisemitism, it's easy to just justify genocide. That Israel isn't killing enough people. But, no, I don't believe that faced with the choice between assimilation and total destruction, the population of Gaza would choose destruction.

Either way, what Israel is doing is a half-measure that will accomplish nothing. Either wipe out Hamas and rebuild Gaza or just kill them all, including babies as a King Herod measure.

As a proponent of one state, COIN would be a first step in building a relationship to incorporate Palestinians in a plural society. If you think that's impossible, fine. Again, kill them all and embrace the notion of genocide as Dunyain has. I respect that more than pretending that Israel is making itself and the world safer by what they're actually doing.

Professional drivers aren't qualified about how to manage traffic, they are actually some of the last people to ask about urban viability considerations.

Like doctors on the field during a pandemic.

Like people who trade for a living for a bank during a financial crisis

What about the widespread criticism of the invasion of Iraq? Many millions of Americans were against this for a plethora of reasons. But the US government decided for the American people Iraq was an enemy.

Are they also traitors to their country?

Having an opinion contrary to the government isn't aiding and abetting the enemy in U.S. legal theory. Or any legitimate legal theory, for that matter.

That isn't the case with war, healthcare, immigration, or any hot button topic. I don't know what education you received, but you're not well-versed on the theory behind the Constitution. The Constituion doesn't exist to protect the strength of the state. The Articles exist to tell the government what it can do. The Bill of Rights exists to tell it what it can't do.

The Bill of Rights is a contract between the government and the people to not permit punishing a difference of opinion. This is exactly the tyranny that the Constitution seeks to eliminate from government.

This is why we should attack arguments not people

can politely discuss the situation with no problems. Can never claim "iraq is right" or "we should fund iraq" or protest pro iraq.

See the difference? you can protest to say that you want congress to stop sending money to Israel. 1a.

you CANNOT protest to say you want a worldwide intifada or saying anything pro hamas.

Not complicated

Asking to support an identified enemy of america is aiding and abetting the enemy of the US.

If you say "i think we don't need to be allied to israel, not in our interest, don't send them anything" it's all fine.

If you say "Hamas is right" , about anything, you are a traitor.

The IDF is exterminating Hamas for us. Would you rather it be American soldiers fighting in urban warzones across the globe? The amount of money we give to Israel is a rounding error in the US defense budget.

Luciom has said in threads that if a law exists, it's inherently legitimate. Even fugitive slave laws.

So, it's not surprising that he has this autocratic view on state policy and citizens who don't walk in-step with it.

It's a good book if you want a global outlook from someone who actually made policy decisions. I'm not going to claim it's the best book, but it's one of my favs.

Justified... I don't know. I don't personally think so. But my main point was, how do you measure the appropriate response? Surely you acknowledge that if they don't respond, they get even more attacks. There's some measure of force that says, "don't even think about it again... because this is going to happen". That's why I used 9/11 as an analogy. You hit someone back so hard, that at some point they concede.. that's what America and other countries typically do. Again, I'm not pretending to know what the appropriate proportional response should be. I'm just trying to push back on all of these false narratives of Palestinian victimhood. It's so preposterous, and far from the truth it's hard to ignore.

*insert moving goal post gif*.

How do I post gifs on this forum?

He used the same logic to justify abusing(rape) POWs so I'm not entirely surprised he's gone this extreme. Mostly poking the bear because the extreme responses are quite funny to read.