Middle East Conflict

ChicagoBlue said:
And HE is Israel? Is HE the ideas I support or just the idea you abhor?

That doesn’t feel like a very sophisticated rationale, especially given the reverse is EXACTLY the mentality of the Palestinians wrt Israel. All they lack is the means to achieve “from the river to the sea!”
Click to expand...
Right now Smotrich is in a very real sense Israel, as he, Ben Gvir, Gallant, and many other Kahanists and extreme Zionists control the Israeli government and military, and thus the higher functions of the Israeli political machine (policy and domestic action), the military (Gaza), and the paramilitary (West Bank).

Netanyahu, in his endless quest to remain in power and avoid accountability, is for most intents and purposes a puppet PM, doing whatever the war cabinet and his far right flank demand he do (at the the threat of ouster), as we are seeing with the ramping up of operations in Gaza right now) and their overall brutal and cruel tactics. For example, as of now they have issued evacuation orders for most of Gaza, whilst increasing bombing of nearly all areas. The far right regime know very well this means millions of Palestinians have literally nowhere safe to go; the cruelty is by design.

It is unsophisticated to argue that somehow those that effectively control the Israel government are somehow independent of the actions of it.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
No, we all work for the JIDF mate. It's infiltrated the power structures here and insidiously taken over the forum.

Still, the money's good.
Click to expand...
Not sure what the point of this obvious attempt at provocation is Damo?

I understand you disagree with those criticising the far right Israeli regime’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank, based on some of your previous posts in this and other related threads (though, I am still fuzzy as to your political allegiances, as I can’t imagine you are an adherent of Kahanism, and therefore wouldn’t consider yourself aligned with the likes of Smotrich, Ben Gvir, Gallant, et al).

But I don’t understand these infrequent, sarcastic guerrilla posts, rather than directly engaging in good faith debate. Seems out of character.

I may have missed previous interactions you have had on the subject, though, and so probably have an incomplete picture of what may be motivating them.

Either way, I am happy to hear your thoughts on this subject, as my understanding is you and I have quite a lot in common as far as direct experience of the current state of affairs and the implications of it.
 
A attacks and kills many of B.
B retaliates killing many of A.
Repeat.

That's what's going on. If this conflict is going to be resolved, A and B must trust each other, and A must police acts of violence against B, and B must do the same for acts of violence against A.

The current conflict simply repeats history with A against B and then B counters against A.

Moreover, A and B leadership may in fact welcome conflict, if only to stay in power. And worse still... A and/or B may attack to hopefully cause innocent civilian deaths... building support for A against B... and ensuring that the conflict endures.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
A attacks and kills many of B.
B retaliates killing many of A.
Repeat.

That's what's going on. If this conflict is going to be resolved, A and B must trust each other, and A must police acts of violence against B, and B must do the same for acts of violence against A.

The current conflict simply repeats history with A against B and then B counters against A.

Moreover, A and B leadership may in fact welcome conflict, if only to stay in power. And worse still... A and/or B may attack to hopefully cause innocent civilian deaths... building support for A against B... and ensuring that the conflict endures.
Click to expand...
I would modify this to fully represent the situation:

A (terrorist org) attacks and kills many of B (civilians).

C (sovereign government) retaliates killing many more of A (terrorist org) and B (civilians), as well as rendering the territory that A and B occupy functionally unable to support long term habitation, whilst also carrying out a program of forced displacement and annexation of territory of B (civilians) in a separate but related territory.

It’s important that we don’t imply a false equivalence.
 
Last edited:
inbetween said:
No it isn't but many do support armed resistance and the Palestinians themselves do support Hamas to a degree. The narrative therefore quite easily swings towards ignorance to what Hamas is doing and has done.

Peace is not possible whilst the two organisations have power and want to kill each other. The only difference between the two is it just so happens that Israel is exceptionally well armed and Hamas is not.
Click to expand...
There is another significant difference and that is that Israel claims to be a democracy. It is a dubious claim but, if they are a democracy, the response to terrorism needs to be much more circumspect. A scorched earth policy should not happen.
 
KS55 said:
There is another significant difference and that is that Israel claims to be a democracy. It is a dubious claim but, if they are a democracy, the response to terrorism needs to be much more circumspect. A scorched earth policy should not happen.
Click to expand...

Hamas where democratically elected as well.

@inbetween is spot on with that point imo.
 
KS55 said:
Do you know the meaning of ‘democracy’? This suggests you don’t.
Click to expand...

Yes I do.

you can attack me as much as you like, it’s very much par for the course on this forum and debates like this where you don’t join the groupthink but the poster was correct in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.