New War In Israel / Gaza

[Danioover9000]

@Twentyfirst

9 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Since Israel doesn't have strict borders for itself and has expanded and created settlements over all these years that means all of the land is still up for grabs. Palestinians could take back most of the land by expanding over years just like how Israel did. 

Why is it wrong for Oct 7th attacks if neither state is solidified with strict borders and both are invited to take as much land as they can? Never mind the resistance coming from occupation thats still huge but even without that since Israel doesn't have strict borders you literally don't know where they begin or end

Why doesn't Israel settle on a border and stick with that through ceasing of settlements or a two state solution and that way they don't ever risk Palestinians somehow taking back all the land since its all up for grabs still?

   Yeah, a strong defined border would've helped a bit, it's tricky especially when both sides are a bit guilty, and one is obviously more guilty, and both sides hate each other for so many hundreds of years.

[Raze]

Hamas rejecting this deal is expected. They would basically get nothing, Hamas would potentially collapse if the leaders all left, Israel would just start the bombardment again after 2 months and already said they’ll hunt Hamas leaders in other countries.
 

But Hamas should not be negotiating to stay in power, they should offer a deal that would grant Justice for Palestinians but also the rest of the world and left in Israel could accept, that would lead to huge pressure on Netanyahu to accept it and if he doesn’t damage his credibility to continue the war.

Edited January 24 by Raze

[Karmadhi]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The death toll from military policy is one thing. Murdering your political opponents is another.

When Bibi starts murdering his political opponents and journalists, let's talk.

But killing childreen sleeping in their homes is far worse than killing political opponents and journalists.

The child is innocent, the political opponent is actively going against you.

I am not saying it is an ok thing to do, but a society where innocent people get killed in their homes is far worse than one where you cannot actively go against a specific politican.

The first is chaos and war, the second is called an autocracy

The second is far better, which is why autocrats exist. 

A "democracy" that kills childreen does not create a world any better than an autocracy does, as long as it only attacks people actively going against the government.

Just do not talk against them and you are fine.

How will you be fine if you cannot defend yourself against a rain of bombs?

 

Edited January 24 by Karmadhi

[Leo Gura]

@Karmadhi I'm done reasoning with you here.

[Nivsch]

7 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

Palestinians could take back most of the land by expanding over years just like how Israel did. 

Good idea.

Why didn't they do that?

Maybe because they don't so much care about more land in a physcial sense, but rather to have the WHOLE holy land in an ideological sense.

[Twentyfirst]

Just now, Nivsch said:

Good idea.

Why didn't they do that?

Maybe because they don't so much care about more land in a physcial sense, but rather to have the WHOLE holy land in an ideological sense.

They are doing that. Only problem is you are calling it a "terror" attack when really its the continuation of a tug of war for land that has been claimed but not officially secured 

Don't you think that Israelis care more about the religious aspect and Palestinians care more about the practical territorial aspect? Israelis are the ones bringing up things from thousands of years ago and Palestinians usually just say how their parents and grandparents got kicked out of their homes

[Twentyfirst]

4 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Maybe because they don't so much care about more land in a physcial sense, but rather to have the WHOLE holy land in an ideological sense.

Right now they don't even have full of control of the land that they do own because they are under occupation so are you sure you aren't projecting Israels values onto them?

[Nivsch]

@Twentyfirst An intentional violent against civilians is not acceptable. I mean they could actually build without ask near the settlements, and to protest if Israelis would resist.

But even easier than that they could accept the peace proposals they have got.

Israel deep right-wing tend to care more about land and religion. The light right wing is diverse between that and the 2 state solution at least before oct 7th.

The center and the left wanted 2 state solution and care less about the land according to what I always hear.

Edited January 24 by Nivsch

[Nivsch]

7 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Right now they don't even have full of control of the land that they do own because they are under occupation so are you sure you aren't projecting Israels values onto them?

This is not Israel values but the deep right wing ones. Israel is very diverse between different groups and opinions.

Edited January 24 by Nivsch

[Twentyfirst]

31 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

@Twentyfirst An intentional violent against civilians is not acceptable. I mean they could actually build without ask near the settlements, and to protest if Israelis would resist.

You say it's not acceptable but isn't it lawful to resist occupation? 

31 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

But even easier than that they could accept the peace proposals they have got.

It's hard to accept a peace proposal for the future destiny of your entire country and people if it's not a proposal you agree with. What was the best peace proposal that was offered that they rejected?

31 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Israel deep right-wing tend to care more about land and religion. The light right wing is diverse between that and the 2 state solution at least before oct 7th.

The center and the left wanted 2 state solution and care less about the land according to what I always hear.

And I am sure there are varying perspectives within Palestinians wanting different outcomes. I think both sides are stuck in the habit of fighting rather than outcomes 

27 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

This is not Israel values but the deep right wing ones. Israel is very diverse between different groups and opinions.

But still the overall culture towards Palestinians isn't nice and vice versa 

[kenway]

 

Video clip from Southern Gaza presumed to be taken yesterday, Jan 23 2024.

Though the detonation in this clip is big, the already-destroyed-foreground gives a glimpse into changing landscape of Khan Yunis.

From Beit Hanoun in the north - it's just desert dust now. Not a single building remains. Just fucking dust.

Would appear that southern Gaza is going the same way. Absolute destruction.

 

[kenway]

Video from ITV News Jan 23 2024.

Mainstream broadcaster ITV News in the United Kingdom conducts an interview with a Palestinian in Gaza.

After the interview is complete, an IDF sniper shoots him dead.

 

 

 

[zazen]

2 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

It's hard to accept a peace proposal for the future destiny of your entire country and people if it's not a proposal you agree with. What was the best peace proposal that was offered that they rejected?

That’s the thing - they always focus on the ‘number’ of proposals rejected without delving into the contents of the proposals because the states offered are ‘less than a state’ in the words of ex prime minister Rabin. 

Besides borders and land being agreed on (structure) other issues (content) aren’t which usually cripples any sense of sovereignty - such as resource access, full right of return (what state can’t control its own migration flows), inability to form agreements with other states without Israel’s approval, a few Israeli security checkpoints remaining and the right for Israel to come in if any security threat is detected which always remains vague, and for the state to be demilitarised - so Israel can have the right to its own security but Palestinians can’t?

Is that a state or is it basically legalising, legitimising and cementing their own occupation which is already the case anyway so that the world can forget about it. Why would any people who’ve been bullied on their own land for decades sign up to those terms? 
 

Though I can see why now it’s become almost impossible for Israel to accept a state with 67 borders if it isn’t demilitarised simply due to geography which can’t be changed. The North of West Bank overlooks Israel’s Tel Aviv and main airport and population centres etc it’s elevated position and proximity can easily allow for snipers, rockets etc to target them.

 

Edited January 24 by zazen

[zazen]

@kenway Continuous barbarity on display. The next 2 weeks should be critical as the result of the hearing comes in, the Houthis aren’t stopping which affects markets, and Israel seem to want to escalate with Hezbollah in the North. Pressure cooker moment.

Interesting take from the white Malcom X:

 

Edited January 24 by zazen

[Twentyfirst]

18 minutes ago, zazen said:

Is that a state or is it basically legalising, legitimising and cementing their own occupation which is already the case anyway so that the world can forget about it. Why would any people who’ve been bullied on their own land for decades sign up to those terms? 
 

That was my most recent point is they would be better off just to keep fighting and maybe they can get all the land back rather than to sign to silly terms making them less than a state 

18 minutes ago, zazen said:

Though I can see why now it’s become almost impossible for Israel to accept a state with 67 borders if it isn’t demilitarised simply due to geography which can’t be changed. The North of West Bank overlooks Israel’s Tel Aviv and main airport and population centres etc it’s elevated position and proximity can easily allow for snipers, rockets etc to target them.

 

Same with Palestinians and having to deal with settlers it would make it impossible 

[Nivsch]

But to be fair Netanyahu is equally an obstacle to the agreement just like the Palestinians.

Edited January 24 by Nivsch

[zazen]

8 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

A "democracy" that kills childreen does not create a world any better than an autocracy does, as long as it only attacks people actively going against the government.

 The word democracy often confers an automatic moral superiority to Israel which further distinguishes it from its “backwards” neighbours. The assumption is that just because they are a democracy that is for the people and by the people that this translates to listening to the needs and wants of its citizens, who generally tend to reject war, misery and repression - but what is advertised isn't what is often practiced by the state as we can see from many war mongering democracies in modern times.

Jim Crow United States was classified as a democracy at the time. If a state practicing untold injustice and repression against its own citizens let alone people abroad could maintain the moniker of democracy, then how can anyone claim that being a democracy automatically makes a state good or just? A system is no more moral or corrupt except by the agents within that system making it so.

Democracy has become a form of inverted totalitarianism with a facade of nice sounding virtue signalling words. Where capital dictates policy rather than policy dictating capital - and capital and corporatism easily become amoral entities that turn members of society into numbers on a screen, gutting their souls and feasting on profits.

In Democracies we have pimps of war who orchestrate militarism, interventionism, and imperialism. They migrate from administration to administration and between them they are intertwined in think tanks exerting control from afar. They con us into war after war with a noble savior complex narrative that we naively bite the bait of and embrace the flag of — two years ago it was blue and yellow, today it is blue and white — the masses become agents and cheerleaders of tyranny yet don't feel their democratic nations to be tyrannical because this tyranny is imposed beyond their borders and upon the globe they feel to entitled to.

Though, maybe a democratic superpower circling the planet with 800 bases isn't enough for world peace, maybe another 200 to reach the nice rounded of number of 1000 will finally bring a new world order of peace and prosperity.

Edited January 24 by zazen

[Twentyfirst]

3 minutes ago, zazen said:

 The word democracy often confers an automatic moral superiority to Israel which further distinguishes it from its “backwards” neighbours. The assumption is that just because they are a democracy that is for the people and by the people that this translates to listening to the needs and wants of its citizens, who generally tend to reject war, misery and repression - but what is advertised isn't what is often practiced by the state as we can see from many war mongering democracies in modern times.

Jim Crow United States was classified as a democracy at the time. If a state practicing untold injustice and repression against its own citizens let alone people abroad could maintain the moniker of democracy, then how can anyone claim that being a democracy automatically makes a state good or just? A system is no more moral or corrupt except by the agents within that system making it so.

Democracy has become a form of inverted totalitarianism with a facade of nice sounding virtue signalling words. Where capital dictates policy rather than policy dictating capital - and capital and corporatism easily become amoral entities that turn members of society into numbers on a screen, gutting their souls and feasting on profits.

In Democracies we have pimps of war who orchestrate militarism, interventionism, and imperialism. They migrate from administration to administration and between them they are intertwined in think tanks exerting control from afar. They con us into war after war with a noble savior complex narrative that we naively bite the bait of and embrace the flag of — two years ago it was blue and yellow, today it is blue and white — the masses become agents and cheerleaders of tyranny yet don't feel their democratic nations to be tyrannical because they impose tyranny beyond their borders upon the globe they feel to be the entitled leaders to.

Though, maybe a democratic superpower circling the planet with 800 bases isn't enough for world peace, maybe another 200 to reach the nice rounded of number of 1000 will finally bring a new world order of peace and prosperity.

I don't trust The Wests insistence on other countries having democracies maybe its easier to undermine those countries once they shift to democratic 

[Nivsch]

 

 

[kenway]

@Nivsch

Does this video reflect your own perspectives??

Kedar is an ultra ultra Religious Zionist. He's the religious equivalent of a Nazi! Even the Synagogues of Europe don't want anything to do with him.

Also, the video is 2 months old.