make sure to compare the deaths of maybe 8 or 9000 civilians to the 11 million killed in the holocaust — BitconnectCarlos

:lol:

You can't use hostage-taking as an excuse to carry on apartheid. — Tzeentch

The question was, what would you do? The background being the question of the significance of the difference between things that happened and things that were/are happening. And you blew right by that. Let me then be specific. To my understanding, the hostages and accountability for 7 Oct. are open, current now issues. In your peacemaking, how do they fit in, and at what point in the process?

make sure to compare the deaths of maybe 8 or 9000 civilians to the 11 million killed in the holocaust
— BitconnectCarlos

:lol: — Mikie

It's not often you get to know a poster by his emoji of choice, but as a reply in context\ that is one disgusting emoji.

What’s even more telling is getting to know a poster by their repeated display of ignorance and genocide apologia. A little more disgusting than an emoji, in my view. And if you’re too stupid to see the context, that’s on you.

To my understanding, the hostages and accountability for 7 Oct. are open, current now issues. In your peacemaking, how do they fit in, and at what point in the process? — tim wood

Once Israel starts making the 'concessions' that it should have made decades ago (ergo, not committing crimes against humanity), those hostages can likely be released as part of negotiations.

Can they be certain of that fact? No. There are no guarantees in situations like these.

But that's how these sorts of things work: small steps, give and take.

Israel just needs to be prepared to make the first, and real, steps towards reconcilliation.

And that is of course the central problem. Israel is not prepared to do that, because a large portion of Israel's elite still cling to ethno-supremacist fantasies of Israel as a strictly Jewish state, which is completely incompatible with the reality that they themselves have created - namely a reality of an equal amount of Palestinians living on the territory it considers its own; Palestinians who would either have to live under apartheid or be removed through ethnic cleansing (or genocide) to make that fantasy a reality.


Like I have said before, reconcilliation is Israel's only long-term option.

Israel's actions are rapidly turning itself into an international pariah, surrounded by a sea of historical enemies who all have a bone to pick with the little upstart state.

Things will not end well for Israel if it doesn't manage to change course and find a modus vivendi with the Palestinians, and by extension, the rest of the region.

like your keffiyeh-clad friends? We don't want no two state we want all of 48. Go do your activism.

And when you do, make sure to equate the deaths of maybe 8 or 9000 civilians to the 11 million killed in the holocaust because it's like totally the same thing. — BitconnectCarlos

Honest question. How do keffiyahs and the Nazi Holocaust relate to the current tragedy in the Levant, the Oct 7 terrorist attack and the Israeli Governments reaction? Because you might be making excellent points from a Real Politics perspective (for instance) but the statements quoted above do nothing to advance them. If anything, they detract; they make me (falsely, I hope) think your arguments are only veiled with merit to conceal an underlying emotion, perhaps nagging to be exposed.

This does not only apply to you. I'm surprised by similar things scattered throughout the forum, and not just this prolonged and often mutually hostile thread. But I sense reading between the lines that you have an earnest position, so I thought I'd ask.

Not much reasoning to be done with the modern day brownshirts. I remember 9/11 when ~3k Americans died and there was no question we were going after al-Qaeda. 180k Afghanis died in that war. A comparable event happens in Israel, but with greater degrees of rape and torture, and Israel is immediately seen as committing genocide despite strict ROEs and letting in hundreds of trucks of aid. "Genocide" accusations are modern day is a modern day blood libel. And it goes without saying if Israel wanted to wipe out the Palestinians it could but has taken a much more careful route.

Israel is ethnically cleansing the area, but doing so “carefully.” And with much better propaganda. Congratulations!

So calling it genocide is just ridiculous. Can’t just look at the numbers dead and the starvation and the rubble. Pay attention to the intentions and carefulness.

Reminds me of Iraq and Afghanistan indeed…apologists for their state’s war crimes often sound similar.

And it goes without saying if Israel wanted to wipe out the Palestinians it could but has taken a much more careful route. — BitconnectCarlos

Maybe true, but should that be grounds for congratulations? Or are they being dutiful citizens of the world by exercizing restraint (arguably, not enough given the death of so many children)?

That reminds me of an assault case I'm familiar with. A father punched a referee for what he saw as a bad call against the former's son in a hockey game. The judge fined the father $800 and asked him if he had anything to say for himself. The father responded with indignation, "$800, judge?" He shouted, "for $800 I should have killed him!"

Of course it's not grounds for congratulations per se. I only mention it with regard to the genocide charge. The civilian to combatant ratio is quite humane, historically speaking. We should also remember that Hamas employs child soldiers as young as 14 and will turn areas where children gather as the bases of their military operations. Additionally, around 12% of Hamas's own rockets misfire and land in Gaza and Hamas has fired many thousand of rockets into Israel since 10/7. These rockets will kill their own and are surely included in the fatality count.

Hamas employs child soldiers as young as 14 and will turn areas where children gather as the bases of their military operations. — BitconnectCarlos

I understand your perspective.

It's a tragedy from all angles.

Pay attention to the intentions and carefulness. — Mikie

They're not even that careful about stating their intentions.

About their desire to ethnically cleanse Gaza they are completely open. They don't even try to hide it. Same goes for their perception of the Palestinians as animals.

Israeli officials have come out publicly and stated these things.

Netanyahu himself called the Palestinians 'Amalek', which is an Old Testament reference to the Amalekites who were murdered specifically to the last woman, child and ox by the Israelites. He's flirting with genocide publicly.

At least the Nazis tried to hide their deeds, showing that on some level they felt shame and realized their own moral depravity.


Every sane person can see this, and various apologists in this thread are simply digging foxholes for themselves out of unwillingness to admit it.

Their views can safely be disregarded as having fallen victim to a lapse of insanity, brought about by relentless propaganda, herd mentality and cheerleader-syndrome.

I find it hard to imagine such people making a meaningful contribution to a moral discussion, other than serving as an example of how humans can go wrong.

The other Gulf States are clearly artifical states that are a result of US divide & conquer strategy in the Middle-East. — Tzeentch

Well...it would go back to the British Empire, actually.

And anyway, I'm not exited about calling various states as "artificial". Putin uses rhetoric like that.
For example Oman has a very long history and has been around for a while, even if it has a small population.

The wealth, power and independence the other Gulf States currently enjoy is indeed artificial and would not have arisen under normal circumstances — Tzeentch

But it did. And these tiny nations, like Qatar and UAE, have been quite active on the international stage. I think the reason is simply that the US has lost it's leadership role with the Arab states that are close to it. If it's not the US, then somebody will be on their side to keep the status quo.

they would have simply been incorporated in a greater Arabian or Persian state.

As US power wanes, these states will disappear. — Tzeentch

I don't think so. We have small countries all over the world: in the Caribbean, in Asia, in Europe. Someone just coming them an absorbing them isn't so likely. The countries are heavily armed and they have huge importance.

Furthermore, please explain just why Iran would become such a hegemon. It's population isn't rapidly growing, nor is it's economy. The clerical state is very unlikely to be a craddle for technological innovation.

It's typically American thinking that if one Great Power leaves the scene, then some other Great Power fills in the void. Great Powers, or Superpowers, are only thing important, right? Yet the likely outcome is just like after decolonization, no other Great Power will come and colonize the countries ...and the countries can have their fights with themselves.

What is likely that Middle East will be still quite volatile and prone to wars even if the US withdraws from the place.

Now btw. after France, the US is starting to leave the Sahel. Last remnants of the "War against Terror".

(20th April 2024, Al Jazeera) The United States will withdraw its soldiers from Niger as the West African nation is increasingly turning to Russia and away from Western powers.

The US Department of State agreed to pull out about 1,000 troops from the country that has been under military rule since July 2023, US media reported late on Friday.

US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Nigerien Prime Minister Ali Mahaman Lamine Zeine met on Friday, the reports said, with Washington committing to begin planning an “orderly and responsible” withdrawal of its troops from the country.

The US built a military base in Niger to combat armed groups that pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS) in the Sahel region, which also includes Burkina Faso and Mali.

The major airbase in Agadez, some 920km (572 miles) from the capital Niamey was used for manned and unmanned surveillance flights and other operations.

Known as Air Base 201, it was built at a cost of more than $100m. Since 2018, it has been used to target ISIL fighters and Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimeen (JNIM), an al-Qaeda affiliate.

Well...it would go back to the British Empire, actually. — ssu

The British haven't played a role of any significance for decades.

They do what the Americans want them to do, and in return they get to play pretend.

The current status quo is the product of the US Empire, even if meddling by foreign powers happened long before the US got in control.

And anyway, I'm not exited about calling various states as "artificial". — ssu

Artificial in the geopolitical sense, of course. These little states would, under non-unipolar circumstances, simply be gobbled up by the real contenders for regional hegemony (Saudi-Arabia and Iran). However, during unipolarity they are used by the unipole, the US, to deny strategic resources/territory from the would-be regional players.

I'd argue that Ukraine isn't artificial in the same sense, because both neighboring great powers agreed upon its role as neutral buffer until 2008, so its status as a neutral state gave Ukraine a geopolitical reason for existence. That of course started to change in 2008.

And these tiny nations, like Qatar and UAE, have been quite active on the international stage. — ssu

If you want to spend your time analyzing the actions of these states in the belief they're significant, be my guest. Personally, I think that's a waste of time.

We have small countries all over the world — ssu

Well, the world has been living under US-led unipolarity, and the pattern I have just described is visible in many places across the world.

Furthermore, please explain just why Iran would become such a hegemon. — ssu

It's the largest player in its neck of the woods, sits on a geographically and geopolitically vital area with lots of natural resources, controls half of the Persian Gulf, it has powerful allies (it's actually of gigantic economic importance to China), etc. - I could go on but I'm not going to write an essay explaining this.

What's perhaps interesting to note is the fact that US/Israeli policy vis-à-vis the Middle-East has left a gigantic power vacuum, especially in Iraq, which Iran is gearing up to fill.

This is what the US/Israel have been trying to avoid - a rising Iran, and their foolish policies have achieved just that.

You think the US and Israel would be willing to go to war against Iran if Iran wasn't threatening to become a large regional player?

The proof is in the pudding.

Great Powers, or Superpowers, are only thing important, right? — ssu

Their influence on world affairs is simply orders of magnitude above the other, smaller countries. Like I said, if you want to analyze the intricate inner workings of Luxembourg to figure out its geopolitical significance, be my guest. I think that's a waste of time.

What is likely that Middle East will be still quite volatile and prone to wars even if the US withdraws from the place. — ssu

Of course, because the US/Israel have been disrupting the natural way the region should have developed, because the natural way of things trends towards conglomeration, which would in turn create regional hegemons which could have been a threat to the US/Israel.

They have created a giant reservoir of shit, by sowing chaos, creating artificial states, trying to stop states from developing, etc. and now that US power is waning, that dam is going to break.

Oh yea, it's going to be one giant mess - a mess Iran will probably be able to profit from in the long run. And a mess that might spell the end of Israel.

You understand that at this point I'm basically spelling out why US/Israeli policy is what it is, right?

I'm looking over Netanyahu's postwars plans and I don't see anything about ridding Gaza of Palestinian Arabs. I do see a strong Israeli security presence at least for a time. The plan also states so that there will be no israeli civilian or settlements in Gaza after the war so.... would why would israel cleanse Gaza if it's just going be empty? Anyway, I don't see anything in here about ethnic cleansing.

As for Amalek, Netanyahu called Hamas Amalek and the comparison is fitting seeing as both groups targeted weak, vulnerable populations and Hamas has fomented Jew hate since day one. They are unmistakably enemies of the Jewish people and they don't try to hide it.

Speaks for itself.

As for Amalek, Netanyahu called Hamas Amalek [...] — BitconnectCarlos

That's not how that Old Testament reference works, unfortunately:

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. — Samual 1 15:3

It's clearly a call to destroy not just Hamas, but everything, including women, infants and suckllings, and all their lifestock.

There are no multiple ways of interpreting this passage. This is a thinly-veiled call for genocide.

You would do well to condemn it for what it is.

At this point, Bibi is probably hoping his "Einsatzgruppen" - ergo, violent ultranationalist settlers (or maybe SS divisions is a more apt comparison?) - will do the dirty work for him in the West Bank:

‘Nowhere is safe’: Fear and mourning inside the West Bank villages where Israeli settlers went on the rampage

I had a response typed out to last post but upon reading this I realized it didn't really matter what I said bc propaganda has convinced you that israelis in the west bank are einsatzgruppen. it's interesting because i consider palestinians in that areas nazis -- they recently abducted and stoned to death a 14 year shepherd boy among others. yet you never hear that condemned. point being, it's back and forth. :roll:

they recently abducted and stoned to death a 14 year shepherd boy among others. — BitconnectCarlos

Of course, anything to excuse genocide.

As I said:

Every sane person can see this, and various apologists in this thread are simply digging foxholes for themselves out of unwillingness to admit it.

Their views can safely be disregarded as having fallen victim to a lapse of insanity, brought about by relentless propaganda, herd mentality and cheerleader-syndrome.

I find it hard to imagine such people making a meaningful contribution to a moral discussion, other than serving as an example of how humans can go wrong. — Tzeentch

@ENOAH take note that this is how discussions devolve.

The British haven't played a role of any significance for decades. — Tzeentch

But they had a significant role in making the region as it is now.

Artificial in the geopolitical sense, of course. These little states would, under non-unipolar circumstances, simply be gobbled up by the real contenders for regional hegemony (Saudi-Arabia and Iran). — Tzeentch

Isn't that a bit too much assume that kind of Mearsheimerian realpolitik?

Asia has it's share of small nations, and they haven't been gobbled up by regional contenders.

There's no unavoidability or destiny of there forming some Pan-Arabist / Islamic Caliphate / other regional hegemon in the Middle East. With your thinking then in the Far East places like Nepal, Bhutan, Brunei, Singapore, East Timor simply couldn't exist. Why aren't they "gobbled up" by regional powers?

Small countries do exist everywhere.

Let's take for example the UAE. It has a military of 150 000 active members and 180 000 reservists, 137 combat aircraft, 356 Leclerc tanks (which is more than France has in active service),HIMARS and Smerch MLRS, Patriots and THAAD SAM systems. That's actually a rather big armed forces.

It's strange to assume that some regional player would just "gobble up" that kind of a force. If you think that's same as Kuwait when it was invaded by Iraq, well, the Kuwaitis had on paper only 20 000 armed forces, they were basically taken totally unaware, no forces were mobilized and still actually Iraq lost about 100 tanks or so in the initial invasion.

But I guess for you many countries are simply "irrelevant" and somehow just barely existing.

t's the largest player in its neck of the woods, sits on a geographically and geopolitically vital area with lots of natural resources, controls half of the Persian Gulf, it has powerful allies (it's actually of gigantic economic importance to China), etc. - I could go on but I'm not going to write an essay explaining this. — Tzeentch

Yet for example the tiny UAE has a larger GDP than Iran. It's population isn't growing, it's economy isn't booming and it's hard to believe a theocracy would see an economic miracle somehow. Although the government tries to promote science and technology. It has aspirations to be a Great Power, that is for sure. Especially in the 1970's many predicted Iran to become this kind of great power, but it wasn't to be so.

And btw, technically doesn't have allies, meaning that there exists a defense treaty, except perhaps with it's own "Axis of resistance". It just has cooperation with the CSTO. It was invited to the CSTO, but isn't a member. The agreement with China isn't also a defense treaty. Hence Iran doesn't have a military alliance that would automatically then put an US or Israeli attack on a totally different level.

It's far more about the US wanting to build this picture of an anti-US axis. For example, there's no alliance between China and Russia.

I could claim that Palestinian SS abducted that shepherd boy. I could say that Palestinian SS murder Israeli settlers. Every single Hamas rocket fired at Israel is a war crime. You see only black and white.

Amalek in normal jewish parlance is any serious enemy of Israel. But no, I don't think Israel intends to murder their cows and chickens. Or their civilians for that matter, as demonstrated by how Israel provides them with medical aid and humanitarian aid.

Small countries do exist everywhere. — ssu

These little states would, under non-unipolar circumstances, simply be gobbled up by the real contenders for regional hegemony (Saudi-Arabia and Iran). — Tzeentch

Note the underlined key word.

And sure, you could come up with an elaborate theory as to why Luxembourg won't be gobbled up. Maybe you'll be proven right, maybe you'll be proven wrong. Again, if that's how you would like to spend your time, I'm not stopping you.

Clearly there are some smallish nations that exist throughout the centuries, but I see no reason why that would be the case for the Gulf States when they are surrounded by two vastly larger states, and sitting on immensely valuable strategic resources.

They have no strategic advantages to speak of. They're completely vulnerable when it becomes clear the international "rules-based" order can no longer be upheld.

There's no unavoidability or destiny of there forming some Pan-Arabist / Islamic Caliphate / other regional hegemon in the Middle East. — ssu

History has followed that pattern multiple times over, so there is a clear historical trend that points in this direction - that doesn't make it a certainty, sure.

It's just that in recent times, US hegemony/'divide et impera' has prevented this pattern from repeating. Such (in geopolitical terms) "unnatural" situations cannot subsist for very long and indeed they are nearing their end as we speak.

Let's take for example the UAE. — ssu

Sure. The United Arab Emirates has a population of 9.5 million people. Saudi-Arabia has a population of over three times that number. Iran has a population of nearly ten times that number.

In the long run, the UAE would stand no chance whatsoever, just like how Ukraine never stood a chance against Russia.

Yes, history might produce flukes and outliers here and there, but those tend to postpone the inevitable when the numbers are so skewed.

And it should be noted I am talking about long-term trends, potentials, etc. - and no, I don't pretend such theories are correct 100% of the time.

Yet for example the tiny UAE has a larger GDP than Iran. It's population isn't growing, it's economy isn't booming and it's hard to believe a theocracy would see an economic miracle somehow. Although the government tries to promote science and technology. It has aspirations to be a Great Power, that is for sure. Especially in the 1970's many predicted Iran to become this kind of great power, but it wasn't to be so. — ssu

What can I say? If I need to explain to you why a country with 9,5 million people has an insigificant chance of becoming a regional player (in non-unipolar circumstances) compared to a country with 88 million, then indeed a lot of explaining is required and I can't be bothered frankly.

The bottomline is, geopolitics is about potential (and population matters a great deal in determining said potential). This is why Israel is worried about Iran, and not about UAE.

Maybe take your case to the Knesset? :joke:

It's far more about the US wanting to build this picture of an anti-US axis. For example, there's no alliance between China and Russia. — ssu

Surely you see the manner in which China, Russia and Iran are working in unison to strain the US empire?

I'm usually pretty cynical about US intentions, but in this case I would have to be rather blind not to acknowledge that it is indeed being challenged by a form of coalition.

I could claim that Palestinian SS abducted that shepherd boy. I could say that Palestinian SS murder Israeli settlers. Every single Hamas rocket fired at Israel is a war crime. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh sure, and I could claim that the Polish resistance fighters who carried out the Warsaw Uprising were terrorists and criminals.

I could do that if I wanted to make a total ass of myself, kind of like what you're doing right now.

You see only black and white. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, yes. That means an awful lot coming from someone who is spinning apologetics for crimes against humanity.

Iran is an economic basket case that just got humiliated by Israel assassinating it's generals and diplomats and blasting its impotent weaponry out of the air. The regime isn't going to be doing anything in the medium-term except trying to cling to power.

https://www.voanews.com/a/iran-s-currency-hits-record-low/7540447.html
"Iran's currency fell to a record low on Sunday, plunging to 613,500 to the dollar, as its people celebrated the Persian New Year."

Yes, yes. That means an awful lot coming from someone who is spinning apologetics for crimes against humanity. — Tzeentch

Attacking buildings that Hamas operates from is not a crime against humanity.

Oh sure, and I could claim that the Polish resistance fighters who carried out the Warsaw Uprising were terrorists and criminals. — Tzeentch

Did Polish resistance fighters parachute into German musical festivals and go on a rape and murder sprees? Did they go house to house torturing and raping left-wing Germans for no reason at all? Did they operate from a government that openly and clearly calls for the destruction of Germany and the subjugation of the German people under Jewish rule?

If nothing else, consider this: Israeli Arabs are treated better than Arabs anywhere else in the Arab world. They have full equal rights and participation in Parliament. That would be like if German Jews were the best treated Jews in Europe. This is where things fall apart.

If German Jews were treated well by Germany but Jews elsewhere were not I would need to look further.

Once Israel starts making the concessions...., those hostages can likely be released as part of negotiations. — Tzeentch

Hostages' release as part of the negotiation? Are you mad?

Do you need a history lesson on the Polish resistance? You think the tit-for-tat wasn't absolutely brutal?

Or what about the Viet Cong? They skinned American soldiers alive. How do you like that for brutality?

You think Israel is somehow special in this? That this somehow justifies its crimes?

Israel is just another country on a long list of countries which have resorted to crimes against humanity in order to try and subdue an occupied population, and used their resistance as an excuse to do it.

Anyway, like I said:

Every sane person can see this, and various apologists in this thread are simply digging foxholes for themselves out of unwillingness to admit it.

Their views can safely be disregarded as having fallen victim to a lapse of insanity, brought about by relentless propaganda, herd mentality and cheerleader-syndrome.

I find it hard to imagine such people making a meaningful contribution to a moral discussion, other than serving as an example of how humans can go wrong. — Tzeentch

No point in discussing with children.