probablyaCat @ probablyaCat @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

187

Joined

2 yr. ago

Look up what was offered during the camp David accords. They could've had 98% of the land they wanted. And a path connecting the two areas. It was Arafat who refused.

Then when Gaza was demobilized, the people backed Hamas and left the PA. Hamas promised violence. Blockade then began.

Hamas must be removed before peace can happen. Perhaps this ends with an agreement that certain countries in the Arab league will take over government and security in Gaza to stabilize it. Let the PA and Israel negotiate again. But obviously the requirements for security and peace will be much stronger demands now.

It's almost like a certain group doesn't want peace.

2.2 million were displaced and put into refugee camps. 1.6 million returned.

Also the IDF has Arab soldiers as well.

This is why my pimp always makes me get paid up front.

It doesn't. They also share a border with Egypt. Have they tried to make good diplomatic relations with them?

He has one, but it is a child account which a couple of the people he watches aren't available. They are just game streamers and don't say or do anything I take issue with. So he often ends up on mine. I don't have another family spot to make another account for him and I have YouTube premium. So it is what it is. Means I don't end up wasting hours watching videos on YouTube because of a rabbit hole so there is that silver lining I suppose.

Yes. Pakistani troops are definitely better trained and more controlled than the Israeli military. That sounds right. Also, you are overlooking some big differences. The civilian population could "easily" leave and did. And the Pakistani Taliban were an organized group of militants more easily separated from the general population.

Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim brotherhood. Egypt has a long history of issues with the Muslim brotherhood. Some of it, in fact, just happened. They are not keen on more of that trouble.

We let Germany decide? Out of all conflicts about disputed territories that was a weird one to choose.

Yes. It worked super well to prevent world war 2.

Hamas came into power when Bibi wasn't PM. And when Israel was planning their withdrawal, Bibi actually fought against it saying exactly this would happen.

While I'm a big supporter of Israel (so I know I'm biased), I can't stand Bibi and especially don't like this current coalition. But Bibi isn't the maker of this current situation.

It would seem to be the case. And I'm not sure what Hamas thought would happen.

Honestly this is an awful situation. But the reason you don't see more harsh criticisms from world leaders (and there have been criticisms and statements calling some of what they are doing as illegal) is because the world leaders know that they may need to same option if something similar happens to them.

Do you have a better suggestion for what Israel should do in order to respond. And saying "free Palestine" doesn't count. They completely left Gaza and it got worse. I can't stand Bibi, but he absolutely called it when they were planning to leave Gaza. The blockade of Gaza didn't start until Hamas took over. And do recall Egypt is also blockading.

If Tijuana started launching rockets and attacked thousands of civilians in California, what do think the response would look like? Or if Morocco did the same to Ceuta?

I don't see how this attack ends. I mean it has absolutely destroyed the chance for Gaza reps to be involved in peace talks. Not that there was much chance of that. Honestly, if I had to guess, Israel plans to wipe out all of the higher up Hamas this time in an attempt to bring Gaza back under the PA/Fatah.

But, given the situation is what it is, how do you think the Israeli government should respond?

Mine are totally fucked, but it is because I let my kid use my account sometimes and now YouTube just doesn't understand me as a person. It suggests stuff that neither of us want. But when I clear history and it just uses my subscriptions it is better.

Real funny way to say you would prefer to not see the other sides' thoughts.

So I'll make this one short. You said

Conquerors and colonizers (the British, but it applies to Israel as well) do not have inherent right to rule.

The thing is, there is no god (or natural law of the universe) given set in stone right to rule. But the de facto and often de jure truth is that historically they do. Human has functioned as such since the time when multiple species of humans existed.

This must be a neat little world you live in where world history doesn't exist and norms of a time period weren't real and didn't matter. Hell, by your method of accounting, I suppose Europe needs to import about 330 million Americans.

I'm not supporting imperialism. It was an awful thing. The genocide of the natives in the Americas was absolutely despicable. The impact around the world was by and large awful for those being colonized. But Israelis are not colonizers in Israel. They have had a population there even under Muslim rule.

To actually want to find a peaceful resolution, you must start with an understanding of how the world actually works.

Country borders have been built. Having might did allow you to expand your empire since time immemorial. And the modern form of Israel came from fighting and diplomacy with the British, who had conquered that land. Israel legally established itself with firm borders just as the Palestinians were offered.

That is the real world. And that is the situation you must work with. Whether you think it is fair or not.

And whether or not you like it, both the west bank and Gaza (and much more) were ceded to Israel by the countries controlling those territories prior to the war. And Israel has also been willing to make land for peace agreements as it did with Egypt and the Sinai peninsula. Jordan and Egypt withdrew their sovereignty. Up until that time they could have also made Palestine an independent state. They didn't.

With all of that being said, after many years of war of war and fighting and disagreements, Israel has become less diplomatic. Especially after the total demobilization of Gaza. Them leaving Gaza is what allowed this current attack to happen.

And the harsh truth is that the Palestinians could have a country rather quickly, but it would just be less than what they demand and want. They are in a weak bargaining position. Made weaker by the repeated attacks. But for all intents and purposes, Gaza has been a sovereign territory for 18 years. And they have done nothing in the name of peace.

It is long, complicated, and difficult. And I support the Palestinians getting their own sovereignty and nation. I support land swaps. But I also acknowledge the reality of the situation requires that the Palestinians give up on some things they have sworn to not give up on. Israel has not kept Muslims from visiting their holy sites, the way Jews were denied in spite of the agreements Jordan made with the UN. In fact, it was Jordanian(I believe) troops that would not allow me to visit inside the temple mount, because I'm not a Muslim.

Negotiations require flexibility. And while Israel has shown that flexibility with land swaps in exchange for the settlements, the other side doesn't even want to be required to acknowledge Israel as having a right to exist. Border disputes happen all the time and are worked out in different ways, but very often one side can end up with less than they want. But isn't that worth taking over the current situation?

Look up Martín Garcia island. Or the Andes boundaries. The Sverdrup islands. Hanish islands. The Baltic sea with Poland and Denmark.

Perhaps if the government of Gaza spent more on food and water than rockets and guns then the people would have more of it. They have the money to pay families of suicide bombers. They have money for arms. Yet it is Israel who is at fault. Israel withdraw from Gaza in an offering of peace and all Gaza did was become worse. And they didn't storm an inhabited place. Look at the actual history of that region.

Hell even the al aqsa mosque that is "the third holiest site" was ignored and not maintained. Israel exist. It has a right to exist. Until Hamas and the PLO are willing to agree to that, their can be no peace. They are the ones who refused to accept any agreement that required them to accept Israel as a nation.

They literally did have the right. Just because you don't like the way the world works didn't make it not work that way.

Illegally took land given to them by the countries in control of that land after said countries lost a war against them? Do you even know the history of how Israel was given control over the territories?

If you really want to take issue with analogy comparison then the real problem is the original was fucking stupid. This isn't punching. This is life and death. And the terrorists in Gaza are choosing death. What should Israel's response be, in your opinion? Palestinian governments have consistently walked away from peace talks. Hamas has consistently used human shields. Used hospitals and mosques as bases for rocket launches. What do you think is a proper response?

Perhaps Israel should unilaterally define the borders, ask the world to recognize them, and hope that the group that has the destruction of Israel in it's platform will accept that and stop attacking Israeli civilians?