nonailsleft @ nonailsleft @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

1,247

Joined

2 yr. ago

The Palestinian side has always been open to that idea

That has no basis in reality. They tried to prevent the creation of a non-muslim state and failing that, they gathered troops to destroy it from day 1.

That has always been what ceasefires mean in this conflict, for both sides. You certainly don’t see Israel not building settlements or not bombing Gaza or any of the other examples of their colonialist aggression during ceasefires. This is irrespective of how faithfully the Palestinian side adheres to the ceasefire (see: 2008 and 2013 ceasefires).

Well regarding the West Bank, that of course is something where Israel is blocking a 'fair' solution as well. They're not much better than their opposition in that regard. But even if you look at it from a pacifist Israeli pov, there's a case to be made for wanting to control that territory, together with the Golan Heights: these are strategically important to keep Israel defensible. In the war of '67 they were lucky to learn of the plans of the coming invasion early enough to defend against them. But if they hadn't, Israel could have been overrun 'from within' from the West-Bank rather easily. Which is why the wish of the zionists converged with that of the military to keep it.

With Gaza it's quite the opposite: Israel decided in 2005 to just withdraw from it and leave them to themselves. They didn't just go bomb them 'for fun'. Continuing small terrorist attacks made them build a wall around them with tedious checkpoints. Hamas starts shooting rockets over it so they place interceptor missiles and, yes, try to bomb the launch sites and weapon deposits. Hamas overruns their defenses, kills or kidnaps everyone they can. So that's where we are now. It's not like Hamas was just peacefully sipping tea and going about their business, totally not launching near daily attacks on Israel, for 20 years

I don't think you need capitalism for humans to construct large buildings. Let's be happy even capitalists value aesthetics

Also, it apparently surpassed this building as the highest one in Sweden

I love how this story converges with this community's logo

Well I largely agree, except for one very important part and that's the 'before that... '. Why should one side accept peace before the other?

The ultrazionists have always been proven right and emboldened by their counterparts. The Arab Nationalists could not accept the borders in '48, so they attacked, which resulted in them losing territory. They could not accept the borders that resulted from that war, so they built up their strength and they attacked again, which resulted in them losing more territory. So they built up strength again and... Well you know where I'm going with this.

And keep in mind that meanwhile, even though ceasefire deals existed on paper, Arab nationalist and islamic extremists made sure to keep the fire burning with deadly terror attacks agains Israeli and jewish targets around the world.

As such is the nature of a religious conflict: they always want to be Numba One. They cannot accept losing any of their divine priviliges.

So they've been battling it out over Palestine for more than a century, and they're both wrong and they're both never going to give up. And when either breaks a border ceasefire again (such as Hamas and Hezbollah last year) , they're undermining the credibility of a two-state solution

It could prolong the war in Gaza, but unless Hezbollah mobilise their fighters for a ground invasion I think Israel has more than enough planes for both Gaza and striking back at launch sites etc. The main burden for Israel isn't military but it's the 100k refugees, which seems to be the reason they're turning up the heat now

It undermines a two-state solution because that would require the Arab nationalists to accept the state of Israel and, more importantly, stop attacking it. It's clear that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are never going to do that. And Hezbollah immediately attacking Israel in support of them after a major attack just shows that they too won't ever be able to agree to a normal relation

Jordan even helped Israel intercept Iranian missiles

And Israel repaid the aid by bombing a Jordanian hospital in Gaza.

So what you're claiming is they first tricked Jordan in helping them intercept those Iranian missiles, and then went back in time a couple of months to spray some bullets towards that hospital without Future-Jordan being aware? That just sounds too incredible for me. Even if they have that technology there are a million better uses for it

And Israel has been expanding into the West Bank since like '67.

Not since the '48 Nakba has Israel been this aggressive with its expansion. This is in no small part thanks to the flood of Ukrainian and Russian refugees serving as fodder for settlements.

Yeah you might want to look at the expansion after the '67 war first before you proclaim a couple of settlements are the most dramatic thing since '48, going to trigger WW3

Can you explain how this is going to turn out 'better' for Palestine? I'd say that it just further discredits the call for a two-state solution

Saudi Arabia is an enemy of Iran in the region, and Jordan even helped Israel intercept Iranian missiles. Why would Israel ever attack its allies in that conflict?

And Israel has been expanding into the West Bank since like '67. What changed that that would suddenly 'draw in bigger fish' now?

Sure. On the other hand: if your bottom line position is that Israel should dissapear and 'everything goes' until that happens, a) there are a lot of other countries where that case can be made and b) I don't think everyone killing everyone would be the thing that prevents WW3

Can you explain how this is going to turn out 'better' for Lebanon? Innocent Lebanese (unless your point is there aren't any?) are dying every day

Even if your crazy scenario would play out (Europe giving up the Baltics? The US fighting a conventional war against China?), how would you put that on Israel for responding to Hezbollah's attacks? Iran tying up the US who you seem to see as 'World Police' and not those other countries just itching to attack their neighbours?

Do you think the current situation is going to turn out better than if Hezbollah hadn't attacked?

I always wonder when people post this: how exactly would this go down?

Say when Iran sends troops/ships/whatever to support Hezbollah and get into a fight with the US, which other parties with significant military power would side with them? Russia is tied up and probably incapable, North Korea would be unlikely to want to commit suicide by using their nukes over this, ...

Perhaps Erdogan would be the most realistic one but I don't think their military would be very eager to follow those orders

There's no way they're just going to accept incoming rockets as a part of normal life. As long as Hezbollah keeps attacking them, they are going to retaliate

If no-one is going to stop Hezbollah, why would they stop Israel?

Don't you just have to watch out for your Hezbollah-supplied devices?

Also, fat chance they could pull the same thing off again

If you expect journalists to verify who is and who's not affiliated with Hezbollah at the hospital doors I hope you understand that that's just an impossible bar to clear.

But if you Occam's razor that bitch, it's just statistically impossible that so many men and not women and children would be injured or dead, with these kind of injuries, if it were any different. There's plenty of footage where you can see the force of the blast.

Why doesn't Hezbollah try not firing on Israel? Turns out when they do, Israel doesn't strike back. I think it's stupid to think Hezbollah should be free to attack Israel but any response is 'escalation'. If you're serious that you don't want war rule n°1 should be: don't start shooting rockets at them

Here's one example:

The explosions maimed many Hezbollah members, according to footage from hospitals reviewed by Reuters. Wounded men had injuries of varying degrees to the face, missing fingers and gaping wounds at the hip where the pagers were likely worn.

There's also footage of some of them going off. Together with the reports of people with missing fingers (holding the pagers) and the relative low number of casualties vs the number of affected devices show that the explosive force was rather limited. It would be extremely unlikely that these devices, distributed to those that needed to be securely reachable by Hezbollah, caused many collateral damage.

Exactly. I'm glad you see the problem