4 ms·

Note WHEN it changed: After Oct 7 2023. In other words, the real cause of this shift is that Oct 7 showed that it is possible to beat America, and destroy Isra

by spwa4 7mo ago

Note WHEN it changed: After Oct 7 2023. In other words, the real cause of this shift is that Oct 7 showed that it is possible to beat America, and destroy Israel. The reaction in the entire Arab world? Immediately pile on! In other words: this was a great PR win for (and by) hamas, showing that US/Israel, and the entire west CAN be beaten. And it was very much a PR win, in other words: it's false information. They didn't convince many Syrians, who had to directly deal with Iranian islamist actions directly. And in Lebanon, it's about equal, which I'm going to guess is not the opinion of all Lebanese. There's 2 groups of Lebanese: hezbollah (who number in the millions) that get paid by Iran's regime and everyone else, that get killed by hezbollah, and aren't very exited, to put it mildly, that hezbollah goes out to kill Syrians in Syria and Iraq and even Iranians in Iran. The arab world is exited for this to happen. Arabs on top again! So ... this is not a failure by the (Biden or Trump 1) administration, and not a reaction to the deaths in this conflict. Also: not a chance in hell that this actually happens. Also ... how dumb are these people? "Who is committed to upholding international law?" with China consistently scoring the highest? Really? The problems with US/EU/Israel in international law is that they don't uphold international law against other actors, only against themselves (e.g. they don't defend Sudan, except Israel, and then only a little bit). But China is actively committing warcrimes by the dozens.

rainingmonkey 7mo ago
[Citations needed]
xg15 7mo ago
"After Oct 7" realistically means "after Israel's reaction to Oct 7, and the US' tolerance of that reaction". The IDF took a day to stop and repel Hamas' attack on October 7. The attack lasted painfully long, but after control was regained, the Israeli government could have chosen all kinds of long-term strategies to end the conflict with the Palestinians. Instead, they chose the most inhumane strategy possible. As for the US and the West, a certain amount of ethical double-standards regarding the Palestinians and Israeli impunity was known to everyone, I think. But I imagine most people thought that the western support for Israeli treatment of Palestinians would have some kind of limit. The tolerance of bombardment and starvation until western citizens threatened general strikes showed everyone that there weren't any. I think that was the big change that was caused by October 7.
- Protostome 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - xg15 7mo ago
    Well, you can explain that to the arab world if you like.
  - atmavatar 7mo ago
    > Hard to "end the conflict" when the other side has made your destruction its founding mission. Read the Hamas covenant. It doesn't distinguish between Zionists and Jews. It wants Jews gone. I find it fascinating that so many people trot out the threat of genocide by a power utterly incapable of carrying it out as if it's worse than Israel actively committing genocide or if it somehow makes it justified. I have no love for Hamas, but let's be real: most of what Hamas puts out is meaningless chest-thumping by an irrelevant power that wants to feel powerful within an apartheid state. It has been allowed to fester and has even been cultivated by the Israeli government at times so Hamas can act as the boogeyman which justifies all the evil shit the IDF and Israeli settlers do. Ideally, Hamas should absolutely be removed, but the conditions in which the Israeli government puts Palestinians in guarantees another Hamas-like group would immediately spring up in its place. Israel should not get the free pass it does.
    - ratrace 7mo ago
      [dead]
    - Protostome 7mo ago
      I like how those buzzwords are being thrown around casually: "Genocide", "Apartheid" ... It's hard to take your comments seriously. There is no genocide in Gaza, a genocide is a systematic annhiliation of a whole people. Read the UN ICJ definition of genocide, intent is a major part of it: >Under Article II, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group" If Israel wanted to conduct a genocide in gaza, i.e. had an "intent" - do you think it would have been a problem for it? Would it issue warnings before bombings? no. The only intent here, is to destroy hamas. the rest - a direct consequence of how they fight from within hospitals and civilian population. Second, "apartheid" - Israel has arab supreme judges and muslim parliament members, very very far from apartheid. Is it a perfect system? no. but no system is perfect, especially compared to the rest of the countries of the middle east.

by spwa4 7mo ago

rainingmonkey 7mo ago

[Citations needed]

xg15 7mo ago

"After Oct 7" realistically means "after Israel's reaction to Oct 7, and the US' tolerance of that reaction". The IDF took a day to stop and repel Hamas' attack on October 7. The attack lasted painfully long, but after control was regained, the Israeli government could have chosen all kinds of long-term strategies to end the conflict with the Palestinians. Instead, they chose the most inhumane strategy possible. As for the US and the West, a certain amount of ethical double-standards regarding the Palestinians and Israeli impunity was known to everyone, I think. But I imagine most people thought that the western support for Israeli treatment of Palestinians would have some kind of limit. The tolerance of bombardment and starvation until western citizens threatened general strikes showed everyone that there weren't any. I think that was the big change that was caused by October 7.

Protostome 7mo ago
[flagged]
- xg15 7mo ago
  Well, you can explain that to the arab world if you like.
- atmavatar 7mo ago
  > Hard to "end the conflict" when the other side has made your destruction its founding mission. Read the Hamas covenant. It doesn't distinguish between Zionists and Jews. It wants Jews gone. I find it fascinating that so many people trot out the threat of genocide by a power utterly incapable of carrying it out as if it's worse than Israel actively committing genocide or if it somehow makes it justified. I have no love for Hamas, but let's be real: most of what Hamas puts out is meaningless chest-thumping by an irrelevant power that wants to feel powerful within an apartheid state. It has been allowed to fester and has even been cultivated by the Israeli government at times so Hamas can act as the boogeyman which justifies all the evil shit the IDF and Israeli settlers do. Ideally, Hamas should absolutely be removed, but the conditions in which the Israeli government puts Palestinians in guarantees another Hamas-like group would immediately spring up in its place. Israel should not get the free pass it does.
  - ratrace 7mo ago
    [dead]
  - Protostome 7mo ago
    I like how those buzzwords are being thrown around casually: "Genocide", "Apartheid" ... It's hard to take your comments seriously. There is no genocide in Gaza, a genocide is a systematic annhiliation of a whole people. Read the UN ICJ definition of genocide, intent is a major part of it: >Under Article II, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group" If Israel wanted to conduct a genocide in gaza, i.e. had an "intent" - do you think it would have been a problem for it? Would it issue warnings before bombings? no. The only intent here, is to destroy hamas. the rest - a direct consequence of how they fight from within hospitals and civilian population. Second, "apartheid" - Israel has arab supreme judges and muslim parliament members, very very far from apartheid. Is it a perfect system? no. but no system is perfect, especially compared to the rest of the countries of the middle east.