4 ms·

Why are you quoting something I didn't say? 'Is it cruel to sympathize with, and encourage, the perpetration of a genocide?' So are you interested in a solutio

Why are you quoting something I didn't say? 'Is it cruel to sympathize with, and encourage, the perpetration of a genocide?' So are you interested in a solution, or are you just pillorying people for sympathy? The Palestinians want sympathy. The Israelis want sympathy. The Palestinians want money (and get) money. The Israelis want (and get) money. The Israelis pound a religious book and whine about this being their ancestral home. The Palestinians pound a religious book and whine about this being their ancestral home. The Israelis show through their actions that they would happily kill all Palestinians. The Palestinians leaders regularly declare they would happily kill all Jews. Both sides are evil terrorists/genociders/radicals/militants. I'm so tired of naive/mendacious moralism by the proponents of both sides. At this point, a solution that doesn't involve "final solutions" won't involve social media propaganda logic, or "I want to save all cute kittens" levels of understanding the political, sociological, and historical difficulties. Do you want me to quantify the sympathy? Well fine. Here you go. The Holocaust killed 5-6 million Jews. The current ... intifada/assault/slaughter ... is 66,000. Displacements, forced migrations, and the like probably killed hundreds of thousands more Palestinians. So let's go for the entire 75 years and say ... 500,000. Which is 1/10th the genocide placed on Jews, leaving out the hundreds of years historical pogroms of Europe. So should I feel 90% sympathy for Israel and 10% for Palestine? That's what the scoreboard says roughly over the last 100 years. Is that what you want? Obviously that is ridiculous logic, and most importantly, doesn't help one iota for a short or long term resolution. The Palestinians got an unprecedented historical gift: the amount of aid they have received after the 1950s British Empire like territorial and ethnic chaos is geopolitically engineered in the creation of Israel, I can't think of anything similar. It supported a population of like 500,000 people to the point they became 5,000,000 people. It's because of the unprecedented oil wealth, obviously, and the kindness of Arab oil states, I believe UAE in particular. Palestinians don't seem to realize that their greatest enemy isn't Israel: this aid largess that supports them is going to dry up. Oil is going to be less valuable as transportation electrification and alternative energy develop. The great eye of sauron that watches this little postage stamp of the world will turn to deal with other things, like nascent superpower conflicts between EU-Russia and China-Taiwan. And I haven't even gotten to global warming disruptions that probably will start to rear up in the coming decades. The money will dry up. The attention will disappear. The sympathy will fade. Israel will gain unrestrained power over the Palestinians. The Gazans need to eject Hamas leadership, and surrender them to the Israelis. Then accept whatever conditions to be allowed to create and economy. That swinehead Jared Kushner is indirectly correct: their only hope for some economy is as a tourist economy for their swathe of the Mediterranean Sea. I don't see any other way they can construct some economy of and degree of self-sufficiency. If Gaza and the West Bank don't find some means of doing something like this, they die of mass starvation when the aid necessary to support 5,000,000 people disappears. Israel doesn't have to do anything but .... wait. They'll probably lose a large amount of US military aid at some point but they have an economy and industries to support the loss of that aid, and as the most geopolitically effective "ally" the US has in the region, it won't disappear entirely. All the bullshit sympathy mongering by pro-Palestinians is just dooming them further. It keeps the conflict going and keeps resolution intractable, something that, as I have stated, the respective controlling political powers want, but the people ... probably not. So if you have SERIOUS insights or solutions, please... go ahead.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
> Why are you quoting something I didn't say? I'm not. Double-quotes means quoting. Single-quotes means paraphrasing. > At this point, a solution that doesn't involve "final solutions" Yes, that is what many are looking for here -- that is why, when we see israel executing their 'final solution', we say that it is bad. The rest of your post, with respect, is off-topic, and is more dehumanization which does not address the issue of israel perpetrating a genocide, because there is no justification for that. It does not matter what anybody did at any time: israel's genocide of Palestinians is bad and must be stopped, no matter what. It does not matter that israel is incapable of coming up with or implementing any alternatives: israel's genocide of Palestinians is bad and must be immediately stopped, no matter what. It is up to israel to find a solution that makes them happy and does not involve genocide or other war crimes or crimes against humanity. Pretty much everybody else manages to do it, and israel is pretty smart and capable, so they can to, but only if the genocide isn't their goal. As many here have pointed out, though: genocide is their goal. They openly announce it, they just don't explicitly say "the g word" when doing so. If you seriously want to discuss real solutions (I'm going to take you at your word here on HN, that you'll participate in good faith), it would have to start with you recognizing and stopping your dehumanizing and genocidal rhetoric. Then, maybe we can use the following as a foundation of shared values to build upon: All innocent civilian lives are equal to each other, they all have equal human rights that deserve to be respected, and the death of 2 innocent civilian lives is worse than the death of 1 innocent civilian life, no matter their race, nationality, or national origin. Hopefully you can agree with this. Once we're on the same page there, you can present some serious* solutions for evaluation. * - serious here precludes genocide, however much one may want it, and as we see here, the scholarly and global consensus is that israel is currently perpetrating a genocide upon palestinians
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > I'm not. Double-quotes means quoting. Single-quotes means paraphrasing. If you abuse punctuation to mean different things than it conventionally means, then you are not going to communicate effectively. Paraphrasing is when you describe someone’s position without using quotation marks (in English generally, single and double quotes have the same meaning, and are used to distinguish nested quotations, with regional variation in which is usually preferred for primary, unnested quotations; both are also used for use/mention distinctions for literal words of phrases, and some styles distinguish which style of quotes are used for use/mention vs. primary direct quotation, but paraphrase is neither of these.)

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago

> Why are you quoting something I didn't say? I'm not. Double-quotes means quoting. Single-quotes means paraphrasing. > At this point, a solution that doesn't involve "final solutions" Yes, that is what many are looking for here -- that is why, when we see israel executing their 'final solution', we say that it is bad. The rest of your post, with respect, is off-topic, and is more dehumanization which does not address the issue of israel perpetrating a genocide, because there is no justification for that. It does not matter what anybody did at any time: israel's genocide of Palestinians is bad and must be stopped, no matter what. It does not matter that israel is incapable of coming up with or implementing any alternatives: israel's genocide of Palestinians is bad and must be immediately stopped, no matter what. It is up to israel to find a solution that makes them happy and does not involve genocide or other war crimes or crimes against humanity. Pretty much everybody else manages to do it, and israel is pretty smart and capable, so they can to, but only if the genocide isn't their goal. As many here have pointed out, though: genocide is their goal. They openly announce it, they just don't explicitly say "the g word" when doing so. If you seriously want to discuss real solutions (I'm going to take you at your word here on HN, that you'll participate in good faith), it would have to start with you recognizing and stopping your dehumanizing and genocidal rhetoric. Then, maybe we can use the following as a foundation of shared values to build upon: All innocent civilian lives are equal to each other, they all have equal human rights that deserve to be respected, and the death of 2 innocent civilian lives is worse than the death of 1 innocent civilian life, no matter their race, nationality, or national origin. Hopefully you can agree with this. Once we're on the same page there, you can present some serious* solutions for evaluation. * - serious here precludes genocide, however much one may want it, and as we see here, the scholarly and global consensus is that israel is currently perpetrating a genocide upon palestinians

dragonwriter 1y ago
> I'm not. Double-quotes means quoting. Single-quotes means paraphrasing. If you abuse punctuation to mean different things than it conventionally means, then you are not going to communicate effectively. Paraphrasing is when you describe someone’s position without using quotation marks (in English generally, single and double quotes have the same meaning, and are used to distinguish nested quotations, with regional variation in which is usually preferred for primary, unnested quotations; both are also used for use/mention distinctions for literal words of phrases, and some styles distinguish which style of quotes are used for use/mention vs. primary direct quotation, but paraphrase is neither of these.)