CNN Host Left Stunned As IDF Confirms Israel Hit Refugee Camp With Airstrike
CNN Host Left Stunned As IDF Confirms Israel Hit Refugee Camp With Airstrike
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer seemed at a loss for words at the justification being used to bomb a refugee camp in Gaza.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer seemed at a lost of words at the justification being used to bomb a refugee camp in Gaza.
You're viewing part of a thread.
If you want the hostages, you negotiate, not bomb where the hostages are. You also don't wait 2 days to secure the area while immediately hitting the "bomb gaza" button. The conflict makes so much more sense when you realize Israel cares more about killing and displacing Palestinians than saving their own people. (Hannibal doctrine)
If I'm in Israel's shoes, I wouldn't be demonizing and dehumanizing an entire people I've stolen land from.
Let's say I magically became ruler on Oct 7th. There's only two ways out of the conflict for good, full scale genocide and ethnic cleansing or reparations and a one state secular solution. Obviously I choose the latter.
The issue is what kicked this round of genocide off.
Hamas broke out of the open air prison and attacked Israeli civilians as well as foreign citizens in truly barbaric ways. Murder, rape, defiling corpses, all that stuff. (Allegedly?) recorded on go pros and other cameras provided by Hamas.
And, like it or not, Hamas are the de facto government of Gaza. And I think they "won" the last election they allowed to happen?
An Israeli government that immediately follows up with "Hey, lets give the country that just attacked us and are still holding our people hostage a lot of land, money, and resources" would see themselves facing a coup almost immediately. The US infamously went scorched earth on Jimmy Carter because he wasn't "hard on terrorism" (and it didn't help that republicans were actively sabotaging him in the process...). And that was a few randos on the other side of the country. Not the still warm and mutilated bodies of nieces and nephews.
And, as can be seen with the periodic attacks from terror groups in other nearby nations, Israel still needs to be "strong" for political and defense reasons. If the narrative becomes "Just rape a few Israeli bitches and then you get whatever you want" then... yeah.
The moment Hamas attacked Israeli, German, UK, and other citizens: There was no way this ended peacefully. A two state solution is more or less forever off the table (see the issues that have plagued Yemen) so long as Hamas exists at all.
And a one state solution and reparations cannot happen until, again, Hamas does not exist. The hostages are ancillary to "ensuring this can never happen again".
The only way this would have ended with minimal bloodshed would be if good faith negotiations for hostages had immediately begun... and Mossad and the IDF were able to assassinate basically all of Hamas leadership in surgical strikes while pretending to negotiate. Because anything else is the usual issue with guerilla warfare where the weaker power uses civilians as human shields. And when those shields die, their family and friend become radicalized against the killers.
And this also ignores Hamas leadership allegedly (?) publicly stating they will continue to commit horrifying acts of terror against anyone who is unfortunate enough to be within a few miles of them.
Israel wants Hamas to exist, Netenyahu said it himself in a closed door meeting, and they fund Hamas through Qatar.
Why? Manufacture consent against the exact kind of barbaric enemy Israel propped up.
Human shields is the dumbest fucking talking point. Even if it were true, does that justify all the collateral damage to literal children? Half of Gaza is under 18.
Hamas won because, the United States forced an election the people said they werent ready for. Moderates split the vote, and a failed western backed coup solidified their power. That also happened 16 years ago, long before many of those Gazans were even alive let alone old enough to vote.
So riddle me this, would you be OK with Hamas having guided rockets to take out Israeli targets? If so, what's the ratio of civilian to militant do you think is alright? Think hard before you make a double standard for yourself.
reparations and a one state secular solution
Reparations can and should happen, however I don't think that a one-state solution is viable presently. Each side is still launching bloody attacks against the other; maybe there will be a remote possibility of this after a few generations of peace. If both sides secular and wanted secular government it would certainly provide a lot of common ground.
Only one party has the power to make that a reality, and it isn't the Palestinians.
Only one party has the power to make [reparations and a one state secular solution] a reality, and it isn’t the Palestinians.
How so? That doesn't fit with my information. Israel has always been willing to negotiate for peace but as they hold all the cards when it comes to the military and realpolitik situation it needs to be on their terms. Palestine has been unwilling to surrender and make viable peace terms since 1948, despite losing every war. In fact, Hamas has it in their original charter that:
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_CharterThis is why things have gotten so bad for them, a refusal to pacify and make concessions. This is a prerequisite to any one-state solution. The Peel commission found that a one-state solution wasn't viable in the 30's because animosity was so high after the Arab revolt and I suspect not much has changed since then. However, I'd love to be proven wrong. It seems like a bad idea to try and compromise and form a stable government with enemies who actively want to genocide you, like Hamas does.
As for a secular government, neither party has one but Israel seems a hell of a lot more secular than Gaza, whose government appears to be enforcing something like Sharia Law on the people there:
Following Hamas' victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections and a conflict with supporters of the rival Fatah party, Hamas took complete control of the Gaza Strip, and declared the "end of secularism and heresy in the Gaza Strip"
Ismael Haniyeh officially denied accusations that Hamas intended to establish an Islamic emirate. However, Jonathan Schanzer wrote that in two years following the 2007 coup, the Gaza Strip had exhibited the characteristics of Talibanization, a process whereby the Hamas government had imposed strict rules on women, discouraged activities commonly associated with Western culture, oppressed non-Muslim minorities, imposed sharia law, and deployed religious police to enforce these laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism_in_the_Gaza_StripIslam is very intolerant to those who wish to become secular/leave the religion, as per their rules regarding apostates:
classical Islamic jurisprudence calls for the death penalty of those who refuse to repent of apostasy from Islam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_IslamJews are comparatively very tolerant of secularists/atheists among them.
There's no Hamas in the west bank. Why is Israel killing and driving them out? Performing pogroms and all that.
Also why should they be peaceful after the literal Nakba? Israel are the ones on stolen land dude.
There’s no Hamas in the west bank. Why is Israel killing and driving them out?
I'm not sure what incidents you're referring to, can you refer me to any articles?
Gaza (Hamas) is being treated very differently than the West Bank (PA) by Israel presently.Also why should they be peaceful after the literal Nakba? Israel are the ones on stolen land dude.
That's exactly the sort of thinking that led to Gaza's current situation, it completely ignores the realpolitik of their situation and will lead to predictable reprisals from a superior force. "Why should I stop poking the bear, it's in my cave!" Well, here we are, another predictable and preventable mauling.
https://www.972mag.com/settler-attacks-west-bank-gaza-war/
They're not carpet bombing them (wow so kind and restrained of them), but they are continuing to steal homes and land. This has been happening before Oct 7th too. This is what happens when you cooperate with Israel.
Yeah, but the "bear" in the situation is a nation state. It's not an animal or a natural disaster. You're blaming the victim here, you realize right?
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?
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.
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?
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/
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
material conditions, here's a short that highlights Gaza specifically
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
here’s a short that highlights Gaza specifically
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.