5 ms·

<< is not all of what Hamas is responsible for I read and then re-read the parent. It does not not appear that he has been discussing the totality of both 'sid

<< is not all of what Hamas is responsible for I read and then re-read the parent. It does not not appear that he has been discussing the totality of both 'sides' actions ( and there is a loooong history there ), but rather focused on most recent Hamas action and Israel's response to it. From where I sit, OP is not wrong. It is tiring - it is especially tiring when it is couched in moralistic 'you should support <my side>' with the undertone of 'because we are the good guys'. I am starting to seriously doubt there are good guys here. << And so you (yes, you personally) are making things worse and not better. Because when Hamas or whoever finally gets to the line with an army capable of marching across it, they'll think they have your support. And I guess this is the weirdest part. There is really one army in this conflict. An army with technology, training, supplies and knowledge seemingly to do whatever is needed -- some of it courtesy of American taxpayer -- and still managing to fail so hard across the board against seemingly inferior enemy, who adopted guerrilla warfare. << And the reason is opinions like yours that choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another. I remain unconvinced. OP is not excusing anything. Personally, I can easily say Hamas is bad. Can you openly say Israel's response is bad? Can you even openly state its response is 'over the top'? No? Then the discussion will remain fruitless and the issue will remain as-is for and will not be solved within our lifetimes. Might as well check out and keep US semi-safe.

ajross 2y ago
> Can you openly say Israel's response is bad? Can you even openly state its response is 'over the top'? Israel's response is bad. Israel's response is 'over the top'. Can you state that responses to that which embrace eliminationist goals are likewise bad? Do you condemn not just "Hamas" but Palestinian nationalist aims (oft-parroted by activist westerners who don't really understand what it means) of retaking the 1948 land? Or do you just look the other way and figure The Jews Have It Coming? You're picking a side here, whether you admit it or not. And picking a side means that someone loses.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  << Can you state that responses to that which embrace eliminationist goals are likewise bad? Sure, elimanationist goals are likewise bad. I will go even further, it is a really bad idea for the humanity to go down that path, because, if history taught us anything, it is really, really hard to stop violence once it starts. << Do you condemn not just "Hamas" but Palestinian nationalist aims? Can you define those a little more closely? I am hedging, because it is already moving way past the discussion at play and if want to evaluate all nations nationalist aims, I am not sure we should be limiting ourselves to just Palestinians. << You're picking a side here, whether you admit it or not. I worry that you may have chosen a side and are not arguing in good faith ( whether you admit it or not ). Based on your statement, no matter what I say, you have already made a determination about me and my views. That is fine. I am ok with stopping this conversation here. I am not expecting to change minds. I was, however, expecting more. << And picking a side means that someone loses. Does it really have to be that way? Is it truly a zero-sum game? It is not a rhetorical question. I am curious if you can imagine a non-binary world.
  - ajross 2y ago
    > I worry that you may have chosen a side and are not arguing in good faith Which side do you think I've picked? What can I say to convince you that I haven't? There are no solutions here. There can be no Palestinian homeland within the 1948 borders without terrible violence. There will be no peace within Gaza and the West Bank without it. At best we can achieve a detent for a while and an end to the immediate violence, with a pie-in-the-sky best case of some kind of end to the west bank settlement activity and maybe a little clawing back of recently-taken territory. If you're asking for more than that, on either side, you're perpetuating the conflict and making things worse. Because eventually we'll get to a stage where one side isn't dominant, and what happens then is an actual shooting war with millions of civilian casualties.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      << There are no solutions here. Zero disagreement. This is an HN thread. It is not even intended for a solution. The fact that is even discussed here is an indicator how unusual a conflict it is. I am not a dignitary. I hold zero to no real world power. Frankly, if I did, I assume I would not be discussing stuff online for practical reasons. As it stands, its just two humans talking. << There can be no Palestinian homeland within the 1948 borders without terrible violence. I will ignore for a moment the 1948 restriction. I look at this from an outsider point of view so when I see words like this, I can't help but respond with 'but there already is terrible violence; how exactly do you want to escalate it?' << actual shooting war with millions of civilian casualties. There already is a shooting war with all the horrors war can bring. The only thing missing is millions of civilian casualties. And it does not look like it ( war ) is being contained. If anything, there is a growing risk of expanding and moving beyond ME region. << If you're asking for more than that Best I can ask for is a plea that both sides stop. Right now, this is probably the only reasonable way to stop immediate violence. And I suppose we can worry about 'day after' then. But as I mentioned before, once the violence starts, it may be hard to stop. << Because eventually we'll get to a stage where one side isn't dominant Because it worked so well now with a dominant party? << pie-in-the-sky best case of some kind of end to the west bank settlement activity and maybe a little clawing back of recently-taken territory So what do we do? Nothing? It goes full circle to 'there are no solutions here'. edit: I think I will be removing myself from the remainder of this conversation. It was genuinely interesting to me so I thank you for your answers. It looks like it is going to be a long week here as I am starting to get half panicky dms.

ajross 2y ago

> Can you openly say Israel's response is bad? Can you even openly state its response is 'over the top'? Israel's response is bad. Israel's response is 'over the top'. Can you state that responses to that which embrace eliminationist goals are likewise bad? Do you condemn not just "Hamas" but Palestinian nationalist aims (oft-parroted by activist westerners who don't really understand what it means) of retaking the 1948 land? Or do you just look the other way and figure The Jews Have It Coming? You're picking a side here, whether you admit it or not. And picking a side means that someone loses.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
<< Can you state that responses to that which embrace eliminationist goals are likewise bad? Sure, elimanationist goals are likewise bad. I will go even further, it is a really bad idea for the humanity to go down that path, because, if history taught us anything, it is really, really hard to stop violence once it starts. << Do you condemn not just "Hamas" but Palestinian nationalist aims? Can you define those a little more closely? I am hedging, because it is already moving way past the discussion at play and if want to evaluate all nations nationalist aims, I am not sure we should be limiting ourselves to just Palestinians. << You're picking a side here, whether you admit it or not. I worry that you may have chosen a side and are not arguing in good faith ( whether you admit it or not ). Based on your statement, no matter what I say, you have already made a determination about me and my views. That is fine. I am ok with stopping this conversation here. I am not expecting to change minds. I was, however, expecting more. << And picking a side means that someone loses. Does it really have to be that way? Is it truly a zero-sum game? It is not a rhetorical question. I am curious if you can imagine a non-binary world.
- ajross 2y ago
  > I worry that you may have chosen a side and are not arguing in good faith Which side do you think I've picked? What can I say to convince you that I haven't? There are no solutions here. There can be no Palestinian homeland within the 1948 borders without terrible violence. There will be no peace within Gaza and the West Bank without it. At best we can achieve a detent for a while and an end to the immediate violence, with a pie-in-the-sky best case of some kind of end to the west bank settlement activity and maybe a little clawing back of recently-taken territory. If you're asking for more than that, on either side, you're perpetuating the conflict and making things worse. Because eventually we'll get to a stage where one side isn't dominant, and what happens then is an actual shooting war with millions of civilian casualties.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    << There are no solutions here. Zero disagreement. This is an HN thread. It is not even intended for a solution. The fact that is even discussed here is an indicator how unusual a conflict it is. I am not a dignitary. I hold zero to no real world power. Frankly, if I did, I assume I would not be discussing stuff online for practical reasons. As it stands, its just two humans talking. << There can be no Palestinian homeland within the 1948 borders without terrible violence. I will ignore for a moment the 1948 restriction. I look at this from an outsider point of view so when I see words like this, I can't help but respond with 'but there already is terrible violence; how exactly do you want to escalate it?' << actual shooting war with millions of civilian casualties. There already is a shooting war with all the horrors war can bring. The only thing missing is millions of civilian casualties. And it does not look like it ( war ) is being contained. If anything, there is a growing risk of expanding and moving beyond ME region. << If you're asking for more than that Best I can ask for is a plea that both sides stop. Right now, this is probably the only reasonable way to stop immediate violence. And I suppose we can worry about 'day after' then. But as I mentioned before, once the violence starts, it may be hard to stop. << Because eventually we'll get to a stage where one side isn't dominant Because it worked so well now with a dominant party? << pie-in-the-sky best case of some kind of end to the west bank settlement activity and maybe a little clawing back of recently-taken territory So what do we do? Nothing? It goes full circle to 'there are no solutions here'. edit: I think I will be removing myself from the remainder of this conversation. It was genuinely interesting to me so I thank you for your answers. It looks like it is going to be a long week here as I am starting to get half panicky dms.