Benjamin Netanyahu failed Israel
Benjamin Netanyahu failed Israel
We can now be sure: His policy of repressing Palestinians doesn’t make Israelis safe.
You're viewing a single thread.
This is key:
"This does not mean most Israeli Jews became ideological right-wingers; they are not, polling suggests, fully committed to the project of expanding settlements or West Bank annexation. Mostly, they wanted Netanyahu and the right to keep them safe in a way that the left seemingly couldn’t. The prime minister, in recognition of this reality, campaigned first and foremost on security — earning the moniker, perhaps self-claimed, of “Mr. Security.”
Hamas’s attack on Saturday, a mass slaughter of Israeli civilians without precedent in Israeli history, exposed a basic contradiction in this image in the most agonizing way. Simply put, there is no way now to argue that the right-wing ideological project has delivered the security most Israelis crave."
I hope there are enough moderate Israelis out there who can push for a different approach because oppression, theft of land, and brutality isn't a way forward if the aim is to stop bloodshed from both sides.
There are plenty of moderate people in the US, but we waged a war for twenty fucking years after 9/11.
All of human history up until this day points towards a great ramping of war efforts to slaughter everyone they can get their hands on
The actual amount of Afghanis and Iraqis killed by coalition troops and mercenaries is pretty low. The vast, vast majority of casualties of the "War on Terror" came from disruption of services and the "Civil War" stage of the Iraq invasion which saw a hundred factions fighting each other as the US+allies mostly sat around in the Green Zone. Largely because death wasn't the point, control and power was, and as long as the oil flowed the US's goals were achieved.
I'm not saying that death toll isn't ultimately the US's fault, but I am saying your point simply isn't true, the horrors of the past operated on a scale modern humans very rarely understand at any real level, and mass death simply isn't the goal that often.
Like, the Japanese invasion of China in WW2 killed twenty million people alone, and most Americans are barely aware it was a front of the war.
Even if you believe the absolute worst of the claims of the modern Uyghur genocide, also not ethnic cleansing, it's an attempt to eradicate the culture and faith that makes them troublesome to control for the CCP. Death, yet again, is not the point, control is.
Honestly this attack from Hamas is notable precisely because killing civilians seems largely to be the point, whatever justification they feel they have.
Those million deaths are mostly the casualties from the civil war stage of the Iraq occupation, and were not the direct result of coalition violence.
Most, as mentioned, were casualties from sectarian violence and loss of service. Insurgent on insurgent action. Not even really Iraqis vs Iraqis tbh, given the large number of foreign volunteer fighters.
America's fault for both destabilizing the region and not enforcing order in the mess they created, but not the result of coalition troops gunning people down in the streets.
The coalition claimed to have only killed 1300 civilians. Do you really believe that?
Sure, if you don't count all the mercenaries they hired as coalition troops. Mercenaries you can watch, on YouTube, firing .50 cals into traffic as "warning shots."
And you ignore that "military age male" doesn't mention being visibly armed, particularly suspicious, and is defined as simply being over a male over 16.
But even if that number was a hundred times higher in reality it would still be about 10% of the total estimated casualties.
The point, as mentioned, was not to kill people, as the original comment implied.
It was to conquer and control an oil rich nation.
Ok? So 10% of total casualties is "pretty low?" 100,000 people is "pretty low" to you?
Compared to the atrocities of the fairly recent past? The Rape of Nanking, the Holocaust, the Eastern Front, even Manifest Destiny?
Absolutely. Even assuming the worst, because unlike then mass extermination wasn't the point, which is what they claimed it was.
I didn't realize it was a contest. What is the minimum number of people to not count as "pretty low?"
In case you've forgotten the context of this internet argument, the original commenter implied the world was seeing unprecedented wars launched solely to kill as many people as possible.
So if they could point to a war in the last two decades that killed, idk, five million people solely to kill five million people, like the Second Congo War, that'd be a start, but it still wouldn't be at all comparable to the ethnic cleansings of the past.
"The actual amount of Afghanis and Iraqis killed by coalition troops and mercenaries is pretty low. "
Over a million people is not pretty low. Go smoke some more crack.
Those million deaths are mostly the casualties from the civil war stage of the Iraq occupation, and were not the direct result of coalition violence.
Most, as mentioned, were casualties from sectarian violence and loss of service. Insurgent on insurgent action. Not even really Iraqis vs Iraqis tbh, given the large number of foreign volunteer fighters.
America's fault for both destabilizing the region and not enforcing order in the mess they created, but not the result of coalition troops gunning people down in the streets.
There are plenty of moderate people in the US, but we waged a war for twenty fucking years after 9/11.
The Iraq war was plainly illegitimate, based on a tissue of lies. 9/11 was not a legitimate casus belli for invading Iraq, and the WMD thing was simply a hoax.
I am not so convinced about the Afghan war. 9/11 was a mass murder perpetrated by Al-Qaeda on American soil, and the Taliban were hosting and working with Al-Qaeda. However, the "nation building" efforts were never going to work.
After 9/11, the Taliban wanted to negotiate with the US in order to extradite Osama Bin Laden. Their demands were simple:
- Stop bombing us.
- Give us some evidence that Bin Laden is guilty.
Bush said 'we dont negotiate with terrists lol' and ramped up the bombing of Afghanistan, leading to the brutal invasion. Later we executed Bin Laden without a trial.
I'm not sure how you could consider any of that legitimate.
Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over - The Guardian
Fair enough. Bush is a war criminal, and no mistake. Still and all, Bin Laden did take responsibility for the attacks.
This is a pretty well-debunked canard. 1) The Taliban knew OBL was guilty since AQ had basically admitted it and whatever else you can say about them, they aren't stupid, and 2) their offer was to extradite him to a third neutral country --no candidate was ever named -- that would ostensibly put him on trial free of US influence.
The entire offer was absurd.
I've seen this claim about "beheadings of babies" being circulated in the last day in regard to the Hamas/Israel situation. Biden "confirmed" it but then representatives walked back claims that he had even claimed to see proof. So again it's one of these situations where thousands of lives are being sacrificed behind "proof" that the public cannot see. It may have happened, it may not have, but how on earth are we supposed to know without proof?
The mentality people have that we should just take it on faith is absolutely baffling to me. We have stringent standards for proof in the criminal trial of a single person, but when it comes to waging wars against countries of millions of people, the standards drop down to zero. There is so much danger in just entrusting people in power to dictate to the public what happened and what didn't and not have any way to verify it. The stakes are beyond reasoning so the standard for proof to justify any actions should be absolute.
The Saudi Royal family was behind it, and we never attacked them because of the petrodollar.
I've heard this notion before, but I'm unconvinced. My impression is that Osama bin Laden was a Saudi dissident, not a representative of the Saudi elite.
Aren't there something like 15,000 members of the Saudi Royal family?
Here's a couple of articles with details about the connections:
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/11/september-11-saudi-arabia/
Respectfully, anyone pushing for an ethnostate is a nationalistic right wing person by definition.
Respectfully, everyone is living in a world where the Overton Window has already moved to the right substantially. Roe v Wade being overturned, Trump holding sway over Republican voters despite being a clearly contentious demagogue, England and Brexit, England leaving a succession of ever-worsening Tories in power. Etc etc.
I'm not playing whataboutism, I'm illustrating a point.
Obama killed Bin Laden.
Bush let the largest terrorist attack ever on US soil happen.
Yet people were calling for Republicans to keep us safe....
Conservatives all over the world seem to be dumb as bricks, including Israel.
Politicians are lining their pockets with lobbyist cash and Northrop Grumman is going to have a great quarter.
racism leads to underestimating opponents.
Unfortunately, human nature is to go the other direction. This event will lead to more extreme view points. Those that professed compassion and understanding are likely to join the hate train if a loved one was brutally killed or maimed.
Wouldn't you?
well, they did say “human nature” and “unfortunately”
i don’t think they’re judging?
It's not the solution. Revenge isn't constructive
oppression, theft of land, and brutality isn't a way forward if the aim is to stop bloodshed from both sides.
Unfortunately, the aim is to:
- from the one side, to have a State of Israel on land promised by the British to the Arabs
- on the other, to have an Islamic State on land taken by the Zionists from the British
- on another, to have the Armageddon begin and trigger the second coming of Christ
- on still another, to have all the infidels exterminated and have the whole world convert to Islam
Stopping bloodshed is not part of either side, some of the sides are actually asking for more bloodshed 🤦
from the one side, to have a State of Israel on land promised by the British to the Arabs
on the other, to have an Islamic State on land taken by the Zionists from the British
This is a little confused... The British promised a state to both. The land the Jews lived on was purchased from absentee landlords who didn't care who was living on it, first from the Ottoman Empire and later from Britain. The partition plan was proposed to make good on Britain's dual promises - it won a vote in the UN despite the entire Arab League voting against it. Jews celebrated, Arabs protested, there was a civil war that turned into the Israeli war for independence, and the British decided they weren't going to enforce the partition plan and fucked off to drink tea and reminisce about the good old days of starving Indians to death and getting the Chinese addicted to opium.
It does seem hopeless but I grew up during "the troubles" in Ireland, there was a long time where it seemed peace was an impossibility.
Still ended up in the situation where a big chunk of Ireland wanted to stay with the British and became "Northern Ireland". That still seems so strange to me, although I get how people would be derascinated like that.
But, if nothing else, proves that independence for an oppressed people is a gigantic step in the right direction. Israel's always reasoning that it would present an "existential threat" and all this, but somehow I think keeping a population in an open air prison isn't making them more friendly.
Yup. This conflict is a freaking mess all around.
I hope there are enough moderate Israelis out there who can push for a different approach because oppression, theft of land, and brutality isn’t a way forward if the aim is to stop bloodshed from both sides.
Unfortunately anyone with a moderate voice is usually shouted down and ostracised with references to Israelis who have been killed. This has been a running theme with Israel (not the people, the country), in line with calling everyone who criticises them anti-semites, but it seems to have particularly stepped up recently.
I saw a news reporter asking a hard question to someone about Israel's attacks, an Israeli politician next to him jumped in and talked the reporter down (without answering the question). You could see the anger building in him, if he wasn't in front of a dozen cameras he would have been full blown raging. It's incredibly difficult to talk reason when people act like that, and without anyone saying it reason can easily die.
How would that realistically look like without Isreal waging war with almost the entire Middle East?
The 'middle ground' for Hamas is "kill all the jews in their land and destroy the Israeli state".
Edit: how about instead of merely downvoting you guys respond with a thought of a potential solution that doesnt end with Israel getting completely butt fucked. This whole invasion was just an exercise for people brainstorm on how to shit on Israel regardless of the outcome.
Here's one way to start. Israel pulls back to its agreed upon boundaries and stops encroaching on others.
Hamas wants all of Israeli territory. The PLO is fighting to regain the property it had prior to 1917. Do you really think that Israel not pushing back is a "good enough" solution? What borders do you think the Palestenians will be content with when like 70% of their land had been effectively taken.
The PLO is fighting to regain the property it had prior to 1917.
The PLO didn't have any land in 1917, as it didn't exist until 1963.
Sorry I meant the peoples of Palestine not the organization made as a retaliation to anti palestanian nationalism.
It's a first step. Can you really be mad at someone whose land was given away by someone else and then the people it was given to keep stealing more.
Straight up, i don't see why Israel is a country still.
I understand that Israel was kind of just given the land but thats ancient history now. Hamas has said anyone and everyone in Israel is an enemy because of some stupid ancestral ties.. Would you prefer all the zionist jews to pack up and leave? There is no middle ground. At this point its either all the jews in Israel are killed or palestine/ lebanon /jordan/ etc accept that Israel needs to be left alone.
I am on the complete opposite side of you. I believe Hamas is a terrorist and anyone that thinks that their actions are justified are getting brainwashed.
Oh no, what happened was 100% a terrorist attack and not justified.
Short term, The middle ground is to retreat back to the land that was stolen and given to you, all land that has changed hands since then is put under international control as a buffer state DMZ.
Long term, improve living conditions in Gaza and the West Bank while using the DMZ to allow people to safely mix and learn more about each other while forming new positive relationship.
I grant you that it is a hard solution, and it will probably only happen after someone detonates a nuke and the international community stands together and does it by force.
It's a benevolent dictatorship situation and the only way to stop the bloodshed is with so much of a third party in between that extremists on both sides are afraid to do anything so as not to bring the hamner of god down upon them.
You claim Israel to wage war against almost thr entire middle east. That is just ludicrious. Where are the Syrian, Jordanian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Egyptian, Saudi, Quatari, Kuwaiti, Omari, Jemeni, Lybian, Algerian, Tunisian, Moroccan, Sudanese and Iranian forces?
The best that can be claimed is Israel being at war with Hamas now and having had skirmishes with Hezbollah and Iran, albeit these were entirely Israeli attacks in Iran.
The reality of the current situation is that Palestine is probably going to cease to exist... And you are asking about a solution where Israel doesn't cease to exist?
I'm confused.
Yeah that is just naive. Israel has no interest in destroying palestine... but palestine does have interest in destroying Isreal. My real shit take here is that the world would be better off without the PLO regardless.
Yeah that is just naive. Israel has no interest in destroying palestine
What was that again about killing all those animals. And blockading of water, food and energy ?
Sometimes you have to pluck out the weeds am i right chat? If you dont play nice, you dont get to eat. That was a joke btw.
I havent read too much into how israel has used overaeching power like that but if you have any non biased sources id love to see.
Is this the first time this has ever happened? I mean a complete blockade. I know blockades in the area have happened before but Egypt was allowed to transport goods in and out.
And... You are calling me naive?
I take it you haven't read the article where it is stated objective of Netanyahu's Coalition partners?
Link?
Israel's existence is based on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Palestine does not care about killing Zionists as much as taking back their land. There's nothing preventing the Zionists to own the land in Palestine legally, other than that they'll have to give up the privilege of what they stole. Many residents in the country even have dual citizenship so they can go back to their homelands if they can't afford to pay fairly.
Did you just comment on an almost 2 month old post
The ‘middle ground’ for Hamas is “kill all the jews in their land and destroy the Israeli state”.
In the original charter Hamas doesn't even mention the Jewish people, they just say they want the Palestinian land back. And in the updated charter Hamas agrees to the 1967 borders and a 2 state system.
It's the PIJ who hasn't accepted a 2 state system.
I understand that Hamas tried to fool the world with the charter revision but lets look back at the classics. Classics such as
"The Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the Earth, because they have displayed hostility to Allah. Allah will kill the Jews in the hell of the world to come, just like they killed the believers in the hell of this world." - Atallah Abu Al-Subh, 2011
Or
"The movement participates in politics and diplomacy and all types of work, but it insists on the choice of jihad and resistance. This choice is Hamas’s greater and first strategy… This is Hamas. Hamas is not changing its skin." - Khaled Mashaal, 2017
Or what about this great one
"The Jews are the cancer spreading all over the world...the Jews are a virus like AIDS hitting humankind...Jews are responsible for all wars and conflicts" - Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris, 2005
How about this
"There are Jews everywhere. We must attack every Jew on planet Earth! We must slaughter and kill them, with Allah's help. We will lacerate and tear them to pieces." - Fathi Hammad, 2019
Theres just so many to pick from
"the Quran tells us to remove the jews in their entirety... Removing the Jews from the land they occupied in 1948 is an immutable principle because it appears in the Book of Allah." - Mahmoud Zatar, 2017
Do you honestly think the real goal is to move back to the green line or is it to just overthrow all of Israel and basically mass murder of Jews?
I appreciate the sources
1st quote talks about the nation and not the Jewish peoples. "God will punish you in the afterlife" is not an actionable threat.
2nd quote is a response to an assassination an Israeli spy was eventually tried and allegedly confessed. If you're not racist "jihad" just means "fighting". Again nothing about "Kill all jews"
3rd quote How is this dude connected to Hamas? I can't even find evidence of him being alive after 2006. This quote is gross and I won't defend it but I ask that people keep in mind the context, Gaza was being invaded by Israel, not the other way around.
4th quote is from an unreliable far right news organization with a history of lying to support Israel and make Muslims look bad. Here is a more reliable source where Hamas condemns Hammad's words https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2019-07-16/ty-article/hamas-rebuffs-leaders-call-for-worldwide-attacks-on-jews/0000017f-db37-db22-a17f-ffb70cac0000
5th quote is not actually featured verbatim in the article. You paraphrased everything before the "...". But again it's just saying Hamas wants the land back and came a month before the new charter