5 ms·

> They could just send one rocket Putin could do the same to half of Europe, eh. The fact that he doesn't, doesn't mean his actions are justified. Not applyin

by toyg 3y ago

> They could just send one rocket Putin could do the same to half of Europe, eh. The fact that he doesn't, doesn't mean his actions are justified. Not applying overwhelming force doesn't mean that applying any other type of force is justified. > Isreal has been trying to keep their morals for decades There are no morals left, in that conflict, since the 1982 mass murder of thousands of Lebanese civilians in Beirut at the very least - if not earlier. Both sides have happily displayed the worst in human nature, multiple times, over the last 70 years. > what Putin did to Ukrainie softened the morals of people to "it's ok if it's for the right reasons". Again, that's hardly new. From Vietnam to Desert Storm to Afghanistan, significant chunks of any public opinion will determine it's ok to apply violence. That doesn't mean it's morally justified - morals are determined in ways that go beyond counting how many individuals are pro or against something.

mlrtime 3y ago
This is not a "both sides" issue. Thought experiment for you. Q: What would happen today if Hamas and supporters permanently gave up all their weapons and surrendered? A: Israel would immediately stop any wartime action. Q: What would happen today if Israel gave up it's defenses and military, took down the borders? A: Iran and Hamas would kill every last Jew in Israel. They have to, it is their charter. Also, how many Jews and Christians are living in Gaza openly vs Israel? What would happen to them in the above?
- toyg 3y ago
  Those answers are preposterous and your argument is laughable. This is indeed a "both sides" issue, because otherwise it wouldn't have remained a hot conflict after 70 years. There are legitimate and now multi-generational grievances on both sides, that are really difficult to recompose. You can't engage with simplistic attitudes if you want to be intellectually honest.
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    You don't like the argument because you know it to be true. The exception is the settlements in the West Bank, but those began after extremism in Israel rose considerably. That is a severe problem, but if people excuse terrorism as resistance, the same would apply here.
    - mardifoufs 3y ago
      That's one hell of an exception lol. The only exception being a blatant disregard for Palestinian sovereignty, and proof that Palestinians will never be left alone even if they'd stop fighting (which is mostly the case in the west bank, compared to Gaza) as Israel is clearly seeking their entire territory, if it is is an exception, still disproves your entire point.
    - toyg 3y ago
      As others mentioned, your argument is fundamentally contradicted by facts. The problem is that, without serious ideological engagement, neither side will ever stop. The current state of play is the failure of the non-solution that is "Two States", aka "Israel and bantustans". Bantustans have historically been unsustainable for any government that tried to implement them.
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  Yes that's exactly what happened in the west bank. Once they stopped fighting, they were left alone! Oh wait no, it just led to massive colonial projects backed by the Israeli government. Oopsie!
  - scotty79 3y ago
    If you had to choose, would you prefer to live now in Gaza or the West Bank? Which community made the better choice then?
    - mardifoufs 3y ago
      That's an odd question. Obviously I'd rather live in the more peaceful side, but that has nothing to do with anything. If you had to chose between living in nazi occupied Paris and Stalingrad, which one would you chose? Does that mean that the Russians made a bad choice resisting the invaders? For some people, living comfortably isn't the most important thing they can have. Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree? If Israel wants peace, it shouldn't push for massive colonization efforts and shouldn't use its army to back any colonist living in the Westbank when an armed group finally decides to lay down arms. If psychopathy is the only way for a group to prevent its own annihilation (whether it happens now or slowly), you will almost always get psychopathic behavior. That's true for everyone, hell in fact even Israel has that embedded in it's very own defense strategy with the Samson option. Which makes the Israeli side even less credible
      - scotty79 3y ago
        > Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree? Actually I don't. It depends on the circumstances and the price. Sometimes getting colonized is the best outcome possible. Especially if the alternative is getting wiped out by way stronger opponent. US colonized large part of Mexico. Are people there better or worse because of that?
        mardifoufs 3y ago
- immibis 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mahkeiro 3y ago
  Christian have been living in Gaza and West banks for the last 2000 years… (and a Church was bombed in Gaza killing 18 Christians). In fact the number of Christian has only started to decrease for the last 70 years as they suffer the exact same treatment as Muslims.

by toyg 3y ago

mlrtime 3y ago

This is not a "both sides" issue. Thought experiment for you. Q: What would happen today if Hamas and supporters permanently gave up all their weapons and surrendered? A: Israel would immediately stop any wartime action. Q: What would happen today if Israel gave up it's defenses and military, took down the borders? A: Iran and Hamas would kill every last Jew in Israel. They have to, it is their charter. Also, how many Jews and Christians are living in Gaza openly vs Israel? What would happen to them in the above?

toyg 3y ago
Those answers are preposterous and your argument is laughable. This is indeed a "both sides" issue, because otherwise it wouldn't have remained a hot conflict after 70 years. There are legitimate and now multi-generational grievances on both sides, that are really difficult to recompose. You can't engage with simplistic attitudes if you want to be intellectually honest.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  You don't like the argument because you know it to be true. The exception is the settlements in the West Bank, but those began after extremism in Israel rose considerably. That is a severe problem, but if people excuse terrorism as resistance, the same would apply here.
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    That's one hell of an exception lol. The only exception being a blatant disregard for Palestinian sovereignty, and proof that Palestinians will never be left alone even if they'd stop fighting (which is mostly the case in the west bank, compared to Gaza) as Israel is clearly seeking their entire territory, if it is is an exception, still disproves your entire point.
  - toyg 3y ago
    As others mentioned, your argument is fundamentally contradicted by facts. The problem is that, without serious ideological engagement, neither side will ever stop. The current state of play is the failure of the non-solution that is "Two States", aka "Israel and bantustans". Bantustans have historically been unsustainable for any government that tried to implement them.
mardifoufs 3y ago
Yes that's exactly what happened in the west bank. Once they stopped fighting, they were left alone! Oh wait no, it just led to massive colonial projects backed by the Israeli government. Oopsie!
- scotty79 3y ago
  If you had to choose, would you prefer to live now in Gaza or the West Bank? Which community made the better choice then?
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    That's an odd question. Obviously I'd rather live in the more peaceful side, but that has nothing to do with anything. If you had to chose between living in nazi occupied Paris and Stalingrad, which one would you chose? Does that mean that the Russians made a bad choice resisting the invaders? For some people, living comfortably isn't the most important thing they can have. Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree? If Israel wants peace, it shouldn't push for massive colonization efforts and shouldn't use its army to back any colonist living in the Westbank when an armed group finally decides to lay down arms. If psychopathy is the only way for a group to prevent its own annihilation (whether it happens now or slowly), you will almost always get psychopathic behavior. That's true for everyone, hell in fact even Israel has that embedded in it's very own defense strategy with the Samson option. Which makes the Israeli side even less credible
    - scotty79 3y ago
      > Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree? Actually I don't. It depends on the circumstances and the price. Sometimes getting colonized is the best outcome possible. Especially if the alternative is getting wiped out by way stronger opponent. US colonized large part of Mexico. Are people there better or worse because of that?
      - mardifoufs 3y ago
immibis 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mahkeiro 3y ago
Christian have been living in Gaza and West banks for the last 2000 years… (and a Church was bombed in Gaza killing 18 Christians). In fact the number of Christian has only started to decrease for the last 70 years as they suffer the exact same treatment as Muslims.