Thanks for the source, I wasn’t sure if you were referring to settlers or something else I wasn’t aware of. Yeah that’s pretty fucked up how some settlers treat local Arabs and I hope crimes like the cold-blooded murder on that video are prosecuted. Terrorism is unacceptable. Extremist settlers seem to be partially responsible for a lot of the recent escalation, their flash mob in the temple mount mosque was cited as one of the motivations for Hamas’ attack. If they are not kept in check they threaten future peace.
This is what happens when you cooperate with Israel.
The 20% of Israel’s population who are Arab/Palestinians and are not belligerent seem to be faring better. Plenty of governments cooperate with Israel with very good results. So, what’s different about these? A long history of warfare and broken promises between them.
You’re blaming the victim here, you realize right?
Just because one is on the losing end of asymmetrical warfare does not mean they are victims with no responsibility for their situation. Ultimately Palestine’s position has mostly to do with declaring war on Israel multiple times and losing, then remaining belligerent and engaging in guerilla attacks against them for the next half-century. Thanks largely to this stoking of animosity despite Palestine’s hopeless military situation, both parties have moved further right. Parts of Palestine embraced Hamas, Israel’s moderate president was assassinated and the government moved more rightwards. Then, there’s the recent attack that killed thousands of civilians. It’s hard to see a territory whose government does that as a victim.
There’s plenty of examples of victimhood to be found on both sides of this conflict, but ultimately one side has been defeated, has no hope to achieve their military goals, yet refuses to surrender or negotiate for a viable peace. Israel is running out of options for security, the carrot and the stick have not worked, and so I suspect they will now try annexation and distance.
The 20% of Israel’s population who are Arab/Palestinians and are not belligerent seem to be faring better. Plenty of governments cooperate with Israel with very good results. So, what’s different about these?
Ultimately Palestine’s position has mostly to do with declaring war on Israel multiple times and losing, then remaining belligerent and engaging in guerilla attacks against them for the next half-century.
Are you talking about 1948, when the Nakba was happening and expelling people from their homeland? Or 1967 when Israel did a “pre-emptive” strike to start the six day war and get a land grab?
This a shouting man yelling obscenities at those who disagree. I understand the anger and wanting to push back, but attacking a foe one cannot defeat is a recipe for further loss.
Are you talking about 1948, when the Nakba was happening and expelling people from their homeland? Or 1967 when Israel did a “pre-emptive” strike to start the six day war and get a land grab?
Both are good examples of defeats.
Man, why does this map keep shrinking? Must be a coincidence. Those darn Arabs did some violence and whoopsie we accidently took more land! Man that’s crazy it always seems to work out like that.
It’s almost like there’s realpolitik consequences for refusing to pacify one’s self and sign a peace treaty after losing wars. Crazy. I expect this trend will continue as long as their belligerence does.
To be fair, you don’t know they can’t defeat them. Vietnam won against the United States. This kind of fascist state can’t last by definition. I only hope it implodes sooner rather than later.
Glad you’ve been on the side of defending apartheid and genocide. Cool chat.
To be fair, you don’t know they can’t defeat them. Vietnam won against the United States. This kind of fascist state can’t last by definition. I only hope it implodes sooner rather than later.
True, but at this point I find it very unlikely. The US wasn’t fighting for its right to exist in Vietnam, there is nowhere for Israelis to withdraw to. This conflict is existential to them.
Glad you’ve been on the side of defending apartheid and genocide. Cool chat.
Genocide: if you mean genocide, as in driving people from their lands, Palestinian-aligned forces practiced that as well in this conflict–when their side annexed Jordan and Jerusalem. By this definition you would be defending those who are genocidal as well.
If you mean genocide as in eradicating an ethnic or religious group, that’s more Hamas’ thing, as I have illustrated above.
Apartheid: you’re ignoring all the Arab-Israeli citizens, who are not kept legally separated and have the same rights as every other citizen there. Their existence makes your accusation of apartheid not make sense. This is clearly about safety and not racial discrimination on the Israeli side.
Thanks for the source, I wasn’t sure if you were referring to settlers or something else I wasn’t aware of. Yeah that’s pretty fucked up how some settlers treat local Arabs and I hope crimes like the cold-blooded murder on that video are prosecuted. Terrorism is unacceptable. Extremist settlers seem to be partially responsible for a lot of the recent escalation, their flash mob in the temple mount mosque was cited as one of the motivations for Hamas’ attack. If they are not kept in check they threaten future peace.
The 20% of Israel’s population who are Arab/Palestinians and are not belligerent seem to be faring better. Plenty of governments cooperate with Israel with very good results. So, what’s different about these? A long history of warfare and broken promises between them.
Just because one is on the losing end of asymmetrical warfare does not mean they are victims with no responsibility for their situation. Ultimately Palestine’s position has mostly to do with declaring war on Israel multiple times and losing, then remaining belligerent and engaging in guerilla attacks against them for the next half-century. Thanks largely to this stoking of animosity despite Palestine’s hopeless military situation, both parties have moved further right. Parts of Palestine embraced Hamas, Israel’s moderate president was assassinated and the government moved more rightwards. Then, there’s the recent attack that killed thousands of civilians. It’s hard to see a territory whose government does that as a victim.
There’s plenty of examples of victimhood to be found on both sides of this conflict, but ultimately one side has been defeated, has no hope to achieve their military goals, yet refuses to surrender or negotiate for a viable peace. Israel is running out of options for security, the carrot and the stick have not worked, and so I suspect they will now try annexation and distance.
Easy, the material conditions, here’s a short that highlights Gaza specifically, and not being under occupation. They have food, water, medical care, aren’t under a permit regime, and aren’t under threat of having their homes violently stolen.
Are you talking about 1948, when the Nakba was happening and expelling people from their homeland? Or 1967 when Israel did a “pre-emptive” strike to start the six day war and get a land grab?
Man, why does this map keep shrinking? Must be a coincidence. Those darn Arabs did some violence and whoopsie we accidently took more land! Man that’s crazy it always seems to work out like that. https://www.palestineportal.org/learn-teach/israelpalestine-the-basics/maps/maps-loss-of-land/
This a shouting man yelling obscenities at those who disagree. I understand the anger and wanting to push back, but attacking a foe one cannot defeat is a recipe for further loss.
Both are good examples of defeats.
It’s almost like there’s realpolitik consequences for refusing to pacify one’s self and sign a peace treaty after losing wars. Crazy. I expect this trend will continue as long as their belligerence does.
To be fair, you don’t know they can’t defeat them. Vietnam won against the United States. This kind of fascist state can’t last by definition. I only hope it implodes sooner rather than later.
Glad you’ve been on the side of defending apartheid and genocide. Cool chat.
True, but at this point I find it very unlikely. The US wasn’t fighting for its right to exist in Vietnam, there is nowhere for Israelis to withdraw to. This conflict is existential to them.
Genocide: if you mean genocide, as in driving people from their lands, Palestinian-aligned forces practiced that as well in this conflict–when their side annexed Jordan and Jerusalem. By this definition you would be defending those who are genocidal as well.
If you mean genocide as in eradicating an ethnic or religious group, that’s more Hamas’ thing, as I have illustrated above.
Apartheid: you’re ignoring all the Arab-Israeli citizens, who are not kept legally separated and have the same rights as every other citizen there. Their existence makes your accusation of apartheid not make sense. This is clearly about safety and not racial discrimination on the Israeli side.
Cool chat.