8 ms·

"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' attac

by 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.
    - xg15 7mo ago
      Come on dude, there are enough, very public indicators that it indeed had that intent. The quotes from various government officials are well-known by now. > Second, "apartheid" - Israel has arab supreme judges and muslim parliament members, very very far from apartheid That term is in relation to Palestinians in the occupied territories, not in relation to Arab Israelis, and you know that. > The only intent here, is to destroy hamas. the rest - a direct consequence of how they fight from within hospitals and civilian population. That's why they're not letting in any shelter material more durable than a tent...
      - Protostome 7mo ago
        Quotes are not intents. If someone would have advocated for peace and acted in aggression you wouldn't call them peaceful. You judge by actions, rather than words. and the actions are far from pointing out any intent for a genocide. Second, the occupied territories were Jordanian and Egyptian territories. Currently most of the territory is governed by the Palestinian Authority with Israeli security control. Palestinians have demonstrated very well that they are unable to prevent suicide bombings, stabbing, mass shootings, so Israel had no choice but to take care of the security itself. The purpose of the Oslo accords was to hand the control in the entire west bank to the Palestinians and establish a state in those territories. Right now, we are in a limbo state. This is not an apartheid, apartheid is a systemic racial separation in all levels of society. And finally, again, everything that went into Gaza was used for one purpose - fight and destroy Israel. Where did they get all this concrete to build tunnels? Where did they get all the chemicals and metals to build rocket and rocket fuel?
- wak90 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Protostome 7mo ago
    Yea well, at least i dedicated the time to write an actual response rather than cursing the other side
    - karmakurtisaani 7mo ago
      Nah mate, you wasted everyone's time.
- jst1fthsdys 7mo ago
  > It doesn't distinguish between Zionists and Jews Almost like the only Jews they know are zionists. Finkelstein had a good response to some zionist going on about the Houthi slogan. He talks about how his parents (victims of the holocaust) hated germans. Not nazis, but germans. Why? Because the only germans they knew were Nazis. So, yeah, the rhetoric would be better if it was nuanced and toned down. But how about we take the boot off their throats first so they can get around to that? > If Hamas were to disarm, the war would stop and everyone could go on with their lives. Tell that to the Palestinians in the West Bank.
  - Protostome 7mo ago
    You're basically looking down at the founders of Hamas, saying something like: "Now, now... you didn't actually know what you were talking about, you meant zionists, not jews" I give them the credit that they knew exactly what they were talking about in this document. Those guys are intelligent, well educated people. And, this document is the US constitution equivalent of Hamas, every word was chosen carefully and meticoulsly. But, let's say you're right and they had a misspell. Is zionism punishable by death? is this what we have come down to? Believing that jews deserve a country of their own means the death penalty?
    - jst1fthsdys 7mo ago
      Great straw man. That is not it at all. It is the simple acknowledgment that Palestinians have only known violence and suffering at the hands of people who are Jewish. That those jews are motivated by a specific ideology isn't the type of nuance a people who are struggling to survive will have. Do I wish things would be better and that jews were not viewed that way? Of course. But that is up to the zionists. Zionists who are, at this very moment, doing mass violence against the Lebanese. Which will only perpetuate this cycle. Which lets people like you argue its okay when Israel does its next land grab, cause every hates them in the region so they need to for security. Rinse and repeat until Greater Israel is complete. > Is zionism punishable by death? This is poor framing. Zionism on its own is a crappy ideology, but that is just one among thousands. When you are using it as justification for an ethnostate that has their own version of lebensraum and actively works to ethically cleanse the people of a specific group who live there: then yes, you should expect violent resistance and people wanting to kill you. Its no surprise the other ideologies with this blood and soil framing that used violence also had people wanting to kill them.
spwa4 7mo ago
No, it doesn't. Israel's reaction to Oct 7 came pretty damn late. Western protests were caused by Oct 7, by hamas' massacre, NOT by Israel's reaction. Let's face reality here: the biggest massacre of Jews since the holocaust, and WITHIN 2 DAYS masses of people were "protesting", but really muslims were celebrating the Oct 7 genocide with slogans like "gas the Jews", around the world. From Sydney to London, to Washington. More than a month before Israel did anything other than close the border. The IDF took 12 days to stop the hamas attack, because the IDF did not immediately send forces (aside from 1 helicopter). You see, Iran's hamas attack was never anything more than a distraction, and Iran always meant for hamas to get slaughtered. The places they attacked, look at it on the map ... there's nowhere to go. Before you see anything remotely important there's dozens of kilometers of desert, without barely any shelter, no trees, no rivers, nothing, without any protection for their forces. They were always going to get slaughtered. Israel fortified Ashkelon, which hamas will need to take before anything will happen. Turns out, hamas was stopped halfway through Sderot, on the public square (look at the map to see just how bad a performance that is. They could literally have walked around it, and nothing would have stopped them. They did not. When facing actual forces, not civilians, hamas couldn't defeat a single police office. They attacked the office, the police officers retreated into the square, and every single hamas attacker that made it into the office died there) The IDF was afraid (I should say preparing) for a real attack from Hezbollah, keeping their options open. The IDF was 100% correct in their assessment that Hezbollah would attack, over land, before any reaction against Gaza happened, in fact before a single day passed. The Hezbollah attack would come through forest, over mountains, where they might hold actual defensible positions, unlike what hamas did. And the hezbollah attack actually might have gotten support from Syria. It didn't, but that was at least vaguely realistic. So the decision to not immediately counterattack hamas was made. And, obviously, now not talked about anymore. So no, the protest marches in the west occurred before the first move against Gaza. Here's a timeline of events: October 7, 2023 — Hamas and allied militants attacked southern Israel, crossing from Gaza and firing rockets. Israel said about 1,200 people were killed and around 250 were taken hostage. There were some Israeli airstrikes during the attack, but nothing more. October 9, 2023 — Israel announces the border will stay closed for at least 2 months. October 9, 2023 — Sydney: a pro-Palestinian protest took place outside the Sydney Opera House, just two days after the Hamas attack. There are accusations of the slogan "gas the Jews" shouted, again and again, at the Opera house and in front of the main synagogue of Sydney. October 14, 2023 — One of the first big Western pro-Palestinian protests after October 7 took place in London, with thousands marching. October 15, 2023 — Sydney: thousands joined a larger pro-Palestinian rally in Sydney. October 21, 2023 — A much larger London march drew about 100,000 people, showing the protests had become mass demonstrations in Western capitals. October 21, 2023 — Sydney: thousands more marched in Sydney again, after police concerns and legal disputes over approval. October 22–26, 2023 — Israel carried out a series of limited ground raids into Gaza, including overnight operations and what Reuters described as its biggest raid so far on October 26. October 27–28, 2023 — The IDF moved in to Gaza.

by xg15 7mo ago

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.
  - xg15 7mo ago
    Come on dude, there are enough, very public indicators that it indeed had that intent. The quotes from various government officials are well-known by now. > Second, "apartheid" - Israel has arab supreme judges and muslim parliament members, very very far from apartheid That term is in relation to Palestinians in the occupied territories, not in relation to Arab Israelis, and you know that. > The only intent here, is to destroy hamas. the rest - a direct consequence of how they fight from within hospitals and civilian population. That's why they're not letting in any shelter material more durable than a tent...
    - Protostome 7mo ago
      Quotes are not intents. If someone would have advocated for peace and acted in aggression you wouldn't call them peaceful. You judge by actions, rather than words. and the actions are far from pointing out any intent for a genocide. Second, the occupied territories were Jordanian and Egyptian territories. Currently most of the territory is governed by the Palestinian Authority with Israeli security control. Palestinians have demonstrated very well that they are unable to prevent suicide bombings, stabbing, mass shootings, so Israel had no choice but to take care of the security itself. The purpose of the Oslo accords was to hand the control in the entire west bank to the Palestinians and establish a state in those territories. Right now, we are in a limbo state. This is not an apartheid, apartheid is a systemic racial separation in all levels of society. And finally, again, everything that went into Gaza was used for one purpose - fight and destroy Israel. Where did they get all this concrete to build tunnels? Where did they get all the chemicals and metals to build rocket and rocket fuel?
wak90 7mo ago
[flagged]
- Protostome 7mo ago
  Yea well, at least i dedicated the time to write an actual response rather than cursing the other side
  - karmakurtisaani 7mo ago
    Nah mate, you wasted everyone's time.
jst1fthsdys 7mo ago
> It doesn't distinguish between Zionists and Jews Almost like the only Jews they know are zionists. Finkelstein had a good response to some zionist going on about the Houthi slogan. He talks about how his parents (victims of the holocaust) hated germans. Not nazis, but germans. Why? Because the only germans they knew were Nazis. So, yeah, the rhetoric would be better if it was nuanced and toned down. But how about we take the boot off their throats first so they can get around to that? > If Hamas were to disarm, the war would stop and everyone could go on with their lives. Tell that to the Palestinians in the West Bank.
- Protostome 7mo ago
  You're basically looking down at the founders of Hamas, saying something like: "Now, now... you didn't actually know what you were talking about, you meant zionists, not jews" I give them the credit that they knew exactly what they were talking about in this document. Those guys are intelligent, well educated people. And, this document is the US constitution equivalent of Hamas, every word was chosen carefully and meticoulsly. But, let's say you're right and they had a misspell. Is zionism punishable by death? is this what we have come down to? Believing that jews deserve a country of their own means the death penalty?
  - jst1fthsdys 7mo ago
    Great straw man. That is not it at all. It is the simple acknowledgment that Palestinians have only known violence and suffering at the hands of people who are Jewish. That those jews are motivated by a specific ideology isn't the type of nuance a people who are struggling to survive will have. Do I wish things would be better and that jews were not viewed that way? Of course. But that is up to the zionists. Zionists who are, at this very moment, doing mass violence against the Lebanese. Which will only perpetuate this cycle. Which lets people like you argue its okay when Israel does its next land grab, cause every hates them in the region so they need to for security. Rinse and repeat until Greater Israel is complete. > Is zionism punishable by death? This is poor framing. Zionism on its own is a crappy ideology, but that is just one among thousands. When you are using it as justification for an ethnostate that has their own version of lebensraum and actively works to ethically cleanse the people of a specific group who live there: then yes, you should expect violent resistance and people wanting to kill you. Its no surprise the other ideologies with this blood and soil framing that used violence also had people wanting to kill them.

spwa4 7mo ago

No, it doesn't. Israel's reaction to Oct 7 came pretty damn late. Western protests were caused by Oct 7, by hamas' massacre, NOT by Israel's reaction. Let's face reality here: the biggest massacre of Jews since the holocaust, and WITHIN 2 DAYS masses of people were "protesting", but really muslims were celebrating the Oct 7 genocide with slogans like "gas the Jews", around the world. From Sydney to London, to Washington. More than a month before Israel did anything other than close the border. The IDF took 12 days to stop the hamas attack, because the IDF did not immediately send forces (aside from 1 helicopter). You see, Iran's hamas attack was never anything more than a distraction, and Iran always meant for hamas to get slaughtered. The places they attacked, look at it on the map ... there's nowhere to go. Before you see anything remotely important there's dozens of kilometers of desert, without barely any shelter, no trees, no rivers, nothing, without any protection for their forces. They were always going to get slaughtered. Israel fortified Ashkelon, which hamas will need to take before anything will happen. Turns out, hamas was stopped halfway through Sderot, on the public square (look at the map to see just how bad a performance that is. They could literally have walked around it, and nothing would have stopped them. They did not. When facing actual forces, not civilians, hamas couldn't defeat a single police office. They attacked the office, the police officers retreated into the square, and every single hamas attacker that made it into the office died there) The IDF was afraid (I should say preparing) for a real attack from Hezbollah, keeping their options open. The IDF was 100% correct in their assessment that Hezbollah would attack, over land, before any reaction against Gaza happened, in fact before a single day passed. The Hezbollah attack would come through forest, over mountains, where they might hold actual defensible positions, unlike what hamas did. And the hezbollah attack actually might have gotten support from Syria. It didn't, but that was at least vaguely realistic. So the decision to not immediately counterattack hamas was made. And, obviously, now not talked about anymore. So no, the protest marches in the west occurred before the first move against Gaza. Here's a timeline of events: October 7, 2023 — Hamas and allied militants attacked southern Israel, crossing from Gaza and firing rockets. Israel said about 1,200 people were killed and around 250 were taken hostage. There were some Israeli airstrikes during the attack, but nothing more. October 9, 2023 — Israel announces the border will stay closed for at least 2 months. October 9, 2023 — Sydney: a pro-Palestinian protest took place outside the Sydney Opera House, just two days after the Hamas attack. There are accusations of the slogan "gas the Jews" shouted, again and again, at the Opera house and in front of the main synagogue of Sydney. October 14, 2023 — One of the first big Western pro-Palestinian protests after October 7 took place in London, with thousands marching. October 15, 2023 — Sydney: thousands joined a larger pro-Palestinian rally in Sydney. October 21, 2023 — A much larger London march drew about 100,000 people, showing the protests had become mass demonstrations in Western capitals. October 21, 2023 — Sydney: thousands more marched in Sydney again, after police concerns and legal disputes over approval. October 22–26, 2023 — Israel carried out a series of limited ground raids into Gaza, including overnight operations and what Reuters described as its biggest raid so far on October 26. October 27–28, 2023 — The IDF moved in to Gaza.