[RD] Hamas/Israeli War News One: Hostages and Invasion

[NinjaCow64]

Might I suggest NOT attacking your neighbours ?
And its time to stop promising this (from river to the sea) and settle for a lasting peace.

View attachment 676799

Talking to Aleks like they live in the Gaza Strip is really weird. Their location is in the image they attacked.

From a purely tactical perspective, why should Palestinians and their allies back down from their demands before even reaching the negotiation table? Why shouldn’t they secure concessions first? Your idea is a terrible negotiation strategy that would see Palestinians worse off.

From a purely moral perspective, from the river to the sea Palestine should be free. There is no coherent reason for Aleks to remove it from their user profile.

This whole post is a weird nonsequita that could be construed as a personal attack.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Talking to Aleks like they live in the Gaza Strip is really weird. Their location is in the image they attacked.

From a purely tactical perspective, why should Palestinians and their allies back down from their demands before even reaching the negotiation table? Why shouldn’t they secure concessions first? Your idea is a terrible negotiation strategy that would see Palestinians worse off.
From a purely moral perspective, from the river to the sea Palestine should be free. There is no coherent reason for Aleks to remove it from their user profile.
This whole post is a weird nonsequita that could be construed as a personal attack.

Normally that saying is considered to be a call for the Genocide of all the Israelis given the last two major wars
Would you also extent this to the Zionists whom claim to there "home land" to include parts of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon ?
Would this be helpful to have Israel official position to start negotiations from

This is also weird, its like half of the History dosnt exist, the half where Palestinians do bad things

 

[NinjaCow64]

Normally that saying is considered to be a call for the Genocide of all the Israelis given the last two major wars

No it isn't.

Would you also extent this to the Zionists whom claim to there "home land" to include parts of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon ?
Would this be helpful to have Israel official position to start negotiations from

No and I don't care to further discuss about how Israel can most effectively achieve their abhorrent geopolitical objectives. You were the one who started giving advise to Palestinians and their allies.

This is also weird, its like half of the History dosnt exist, the half where Palestinians do bad things

I think it is absurd to "both sides" this issue. Israel is directly militarily and financially supported by the world's only superpower and have systematically oppressed and slaughtered Palestinians for decades. Palestinians are an impoverished and colonised people with minimal military and economic support. Israel has significantly more moral culpability than Palestine for this situation for the simple reason that Israel has so much more influence over the region than Palestine does.

Even putting that aside - the amount of Palestinian civilians that have been killed by Israelis (either directly or indirectly) is several orders of magnitude higher than the amount of Israelis killed by Palestinians, both in this conflict and over the entirety of the existence of Israel.

 

[Yeekim]

Their location is in the image they attacked.

I doubt the poster resides in a fictional county.

 

[Verbose]

Talking to Aleks like they live in the Gaza Strip is really weird. Their location is in the image they attacked.

From a purely tactical perspective, why should Palestinians and their allies back down from their demands before even reaching the negotiation table? Why shouldn’t they secure concessions first? Your idea is a terrible negotiation strategy that would see Palestinians worse off.

From a purely moral perspective, from the river to the sea Palestine should be free. There is no coherent reason for Aleks to remove it from their user profile.

This whole post is a weird nonsequita that could be construed as a personal attack.

There is an observed disconnect between the Israeli and Palestinians sides here that is very dangerous, but it's not even new – these nations are joined at the hip through the conflict, and yet both tend to act and think as-if they do not need to understand and take into account what is actually going on with the other party. These societies don't know nearly enough about each other already. Of course, with the absolute power discrepancy between the sides, it matters way more how the Israelis fail at this. The responsibility falls on Israel, because Israel is the party that has had the means to create the perverse situation that a generation of Gazans have already grown that has never personally seen an Israeli.

The other Israeli perversity is how it managed to kill its own peace movement. Israelis sometimes refer to the deal offered by Ehud Barak. Which wasn't bad, where israel was offering to actually give real things up, and concede them to the Palestinians. And then the Palestinian side refused it.
And it turned out no one in Israel had really stopped to think aboiut whether the Palestinian side was anywhere NEAR an internal political situation where they COULD take such an offer (no right to return being the sticking point). The Israelis had NO IDEA what the situation was on the Palestinian side, and had not even stopped to think beyond the assumption that whatever Israel offered, the Palestinians would just accept – because the Israelis considered it reasonable. And the shock of this outcome on the israeli side was so great, the Israeli peace movement pretty much just laid down and died from it.

So why should the Israeliis know and care about what goes on the Palestinian side, and vice versa? Because unless the objective on both sides really is just the eradication of the other – no need to know anything about them then of course – then it is necessary to know what is going on with the other party, including what symbols, signals and slogans (like the river to the sea here) signifies to the other party. It is just not going to be possible to get meaningful negotiations without it. (But of course those do not want negotiations might adopt a maximalist attitude because it is fit for purpose to avoid having negotiations.)

Anyone can then think some of these responses overblown and irrational, maybe try to argue about them given the opportunity, but demanding some kind of absolute right to willful ignorance about their significance to one side or the other isn't really something than can claimed in good faith.

 

[NinjaCow64]

There is an observed disconnect between the Israeli and Palestinians sides here that is very dangerous, but it's not even new – these nations are joined at the hip through the conflict, and yet both tend to act and think as-if they do not need to understand and take into account what is actually going on with the other party. These societies don't know nearly enough about each other already. Of course, with the absolute power discrepancy between the sides, it matters way more how the Israelis fail at this. The responsibility falls on Israel, because Israel is the party that has had the means to create the perverse situation that a generation of Gazans have already grown that has never personally seen an Israeli.

The other Israeli perversity is how it managed to kill its own peace movement. Israelis sometimes refer to the deal offered by Ehud Barak. Which wasn't bad, where israel was offering to actually give real things up, and concede them to the Palestinians. And then the Palestinian side refused it.
And it turned out no one in Israel had really stopped to think aboiut whether the Palestinian side was anywhere NEAR an internal political situation where they COULD take such an offer (no right to return being the sticking point). The Israelis had NO IDEA what the situation was on the Palestinian side, and had not even stopped to think beyond the assumption that whatever Israel offered, the Palestinians would just accept – because the Israelis considered it reasonable. And the shock of this outcome on the israeli side was so great, the Israeli peace movement pretty much just laid down and died from it.

So why should the Israeliis know and care about what goes on the Palestinian side, and vice versa? Because unless the objective on both sides really is just the eradication of the other – no need to know anything about them then of course – then it is necessary to know what is going on with the other party, including what symbols, signals and slogans (like the river to the sea here) signifies to the other party. It is just not going to be possible to get meaningful negotiations without it. (But of course those do not want negotiations might adopt a maximalist attitude because it is fit for purpose to avoid having negotiations.)

Anyone can then think some of these responses overblown and irrational, maybe try to argue about them given the opportunity, but demanding some kind of absolute right to willful ignorance about their significance to one side or the other isn't really something than can claimed in good faith.

So do you think that Palestinians and their allies should stop using "from the river to the sea" because some Israelis disingenuously claim it is a call to genocide?

If that is what you are saying then I can't agree with that. Oppressors love policing the language of the oppressed, I've seen it as a recurring pattern used against all sorts of minority groups and this is no different.

I sincerely doubt that if Palestinians or their allies stopped saying this phrase it would cause the Israelis to treat them any differently...

 

[Gorbles]

Additionally, "do this and you'll benefit" rests solely on Israel respecting that. Israel don't seem to be inspiring much confidence on that front, given the repeated bombing of both the Palestinians it told to move south, and that south (of Gaza) itself.

 

[amadeus]

What’s the incentive for them to keep up the rhetoric? Other than to claim they are not Fatah.

 

[Kyriakos]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1720783604261716020

Change will have to come from outside Israel. And the US should take the initiative to force a ceasefire.
Maybe the rapidly growing dissent will make it happen.

 

[Gorbles]

What’s the incentive for them to keep up the rhetoric? Other than to claim they are not Fatah.

Which rhetoric are we talking about?

 

[amadeus]

Which rhetoric are we talking about?

Palestine, from sea to shining… river? I assume that’s what was being discussed at the moment; let me know if I’m wrong.

 

[FriendlyFire]

No it isn't.

Yes it is

No and I don't care to further discuss about how Israel can most effectively achieve their abhorrent geopolitical objectives. You were the one who started giving advise to Palestinians and their allies.

So its fine for Palestine to demand the complete eraser of Israel
But its not for Israel to demand the complete eraser of Palestine that is abhorrent
something something purely moral perspective

I think it is absurd to "both sides" this issue. Israel is directly militarily and financially supported by the world's only superpower and have systematically oppressed and slaughtered Palestinians for decades. Palestinians are an impoverished and colonised people with minimal military and economic support. Israel has significantly more moral culpability than Palestine for this situation for the simple reason that Israel has so much more influence over the region than Palestine does.
Even putting that aside - the amount of Palestinian civilians that have been killed by Israelis (either directly or indirectly) is several orders of magnitude higher than the amount of Israelis killed by Palestinians, both in this conflict and over the entirety of the existence of Israel.

You think history of the region is absurd or just the History where Palestinians do bad things and then there are repercussions that are a direct result ?
Palestine enjoyed support from its Arab neighbours, Israel isnt exactly mineral rich or fertile land or habitual land or has large population

Palestinians refugees in Jordan, carried out terrorism, kidnapping, theft and attempted to overthrow the Jordanian government
They were crushed by Jordan and lost signficantly more casulaties
I guess Jordanians were "Significantly more moral culpability" then since more palestinian civilians died then Jordanian civilians

 

[Gorbles]

Palestine, from sea to shining… river? I assume that’s what was being discussed at the moment; let me know if I’m wrong.

Just wanted to be sure before I responded.

So ignoring the whole occupying power radicalising folks into Hamas' arms for a second, the phrase itself is used across demographics, and pinning down a single meaning is difficult.

Can it be used in an antisemitic way? Yes. Would you therefore agree that all people saying it should be associated with that usage? Do you (or @GenMarshall) believe in that kind of shared guilt?

------------------

In other ongoing news:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1720899287695929411

Screenshot:

 

[W|M]

What’s the incentive for them to keep up the rhetoric? Other than to claim they are not Fatah.

(Assuming by them you mean Hamas, since they're the biggest non-Fatah organization involved here): Hamas was founded during the First Intifada as a split from the local branch of the Muslim Brotherhood because the wider Muslim Brotherhood organization refused to militantly oppose Israel - It gained public support in the 2000s largely because, unlike Fatah, they are militantly anti-Israel/anti-Zionism. The entire point of the organization is to fight for a Palestine that stretches contiguously from the Mediterranean Sea to the River Jordan

 

[W|M]

Yes it is

neither intifada saw a genocide of israelis, nor did 1967 or 1973

So its fine for Palestine to demand the complete eraser of Israel
But its not for Israel to demand the complete eraser of Palestine that is abhorrent
something something purely moral perspective

one is a colonial project who's national security minister openly defends a mass shooting, the other isn't

You think history of the region is absurd or just the History where Palestinians do bad things and then there are repercussions that are a direct result ?
Palestine enjoyed support from its Arab neighbours, Israel isnt exactly mineral rich or fertile land or habitual land or has large population

Israel doesn't exactly have a leg to stand on when complaining about low population or agricultural production - and that "support from its Arab neighbours", which was all blatantly self-serving in the first place, is very much in the past tense

Palestinians refugees in Jordan, carried out terrorism, kidnapping, theft and attempted to overthrow the Jordanian government
They were crushed by Jordan and lost signficantly more casulaties
I guess Jordanians were "Significantly more moral culpability" then since more palestinian civilians died then Jordanian civilians

they were attempting to overthrow an oppressive monarchy that had ruled the West Bank and killed Palestinians for years

 

[NinjaCow64]

What’s the incentive for them to keep up the rhetoric? Other than to claim they are not Fatah.

"From the river to the sea" is not exclusively used by Hamas or any non-Fatah group, in fact the phrase originates in the 60s (nearly 20 years before the founding of Hamas).

 

[Sarin]

Change will have to come from outside Israel. And the US should take the initiative to force a ceasefire.
Maybe the rapidly growing dissent will make it happen.

External agency can't impose truce between two sides not wanting a truce by any other means but superior force, be it military or other means. But that won't be peace. The conflict, even if paused this way, will simmer until it can flare up again. Plenty of examples all around the world, from Kosovo to the post-colonial Africa.

The only way this really ends in any other way but genocide is if there's enough will and political power on both sides to break the cycle or revenge, hate and violence, admit the wrongdoing of both sides, bring those responsible to justice from both sides, even if it means going against their own, and try to work out something that'll allow at least their children to live in peace.
But right now, I see virtually no such will on either side. Instead, any support given to either side will go toward fueling the genocide. And I don't want any part of that.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Normally that saying is considered to be a call for the Genocide of all the Israelis given the last two major wars
Would you also extent this to the Zionists whom claim to there "home land" to include parts of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon ?
Would this be helpful to have Israel official position to start negotiations from

This is also weird, its like half of the History dosnt exist, the half where Palestinians do bad things

From the river to the sea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some Islamic militant groups (including Hamas and Islamic Jihad), and Arab leaders (such as Saddam Hussein) came to utilize the slogan when calling for the supplementation of Israel with a unified Palestinian state, sometimes also proposing the removal of all or most of its Jewish population.[33][12][5][6][7][34][16] Hamas, as part of its revised 2017 charter, rejected “any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea", referring to all areas of former Mandatory Palestine and by extent, the elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the region.[6][35][36][37] Islamic Jihad declared that “from the river to the sea - [Palestine] is an Arab Islamic land that [it] is legally forbidden from abandoning any inch of, and the Israeli presence in Palestine is a null existence, which is forbidden by law to recognize.[14] Islamic supporters have utilized a version stating "Palestine is Islamic from the river to the sea", with certain Islamic scholars have declared the Mahdi - a redemptive apocalyptic figure central to Islamic eschatology - will declare "Jerusalem is Arab Muslim, and Palestine — all of it, from the river to the sea — is Arab Muslim."[38][39]

Sounds like it means whatever its users need it to mean at any one moment.
Personally I'd find a better slogan which differentiates me from those users who do want Jews expelled from the Mideast, rather than this intellectual preening about other people who don't "get" it.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Yes it is

I think WIM adequately explained how there is no evidence of your claim.

So its fine for Palestine to demand the complete eraser of Israel
But its not for Israel to demand the complete eraser of Palestine that is abhorrent
something something purely moral perspective

I think you mean erasure.

When Palestinians call for the erasure of Israel they are calling for an end to the regime that denies them political rights and is attempting to genocide them. When Israel calls for the erasure of Palestine they are calling for the deportation or slaughter of the entire Palestinian populace. There's a difference.

You think history of the region is absurd or just the History where Palestinians do bad things and then there are repercussions that are a direct result ?

Its absurd to pretend that Israelis and Palestinians are equally responsible for these horrors, which is "both siding". Israel bears far more responsibility.

I find the bolded rhetoric particularly fascinating, implying that Israel is a force of nature, like a cyclone. That Israel is somehow bares no moral culpability, that Palestinians are entirely responsible for daring to provoke Israel's wrath for attacking the state that is and was slowly torturing them to death.

Palestine enjoyed support from its Arab neighbours,

It is absurd to compare the enormous economic and military support that Israel receives from its American and European allies to the lukewarm and inconsistent economic and military support provided to Palestinian groups by its Arab neighbours.

Does Palestine have nuclear weapons that was supported by its Arab neighbours? No, but Israel has nuclear weapons that were developed in cooperation with the French. Does Palestine have a massive dome that protects it from missile attacks? No, but Israel does, it was built partially with U.S tax dollars. Does Palestine enjoy hundreds of billions of dollars in military aid from its allies? No, but Israel does.

I don't know enough about the Jordan thing you are talking about to comment but I am sure that WIM is correct in his assessment of it.

 

[NinjaCow64]

But right now, I see virtually no such will on either side. Instead, any support given to either side will go toward fueling the genocide. And I don't want any part of that.

If you live in the Global North there's a good chance that your country either diplomatically, economically or militarily supports Israel so you don't have much of a choice unless you want to campaign against it.

Personally I'd find a better slogan which differentiates me from those users who do want Jews expelled from the Mideast, rather than this intellectual preening about other people who don't "get" it.

I assure you that any slogan developed by Palestinians or their allies will be misconstrued as an antisemitic attack. Engaging in these sorts of rhetoric changes are a waste of time.