Middle East Conflict

[BayernMan]

Because the winners write the new rules and the losers have to live with them…until another war changes that. So far, it hasn’t.

That’s fine cold logic and all but living by the sword is hardly novel or clever.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

That’s fine cold logic and all but living by the sword is hardly novel or clever.

My mistake! I thought you were looking for answers? Not novelty or cleverness, but reality.

The State of Israel as we know it today was a result of WWII and perceived “owners” of the land at that time. Subsequent wars in the region have moved some of those boundaries. If you talk to a few people from other countries in, say, Eastern or Central Europe, you may find they would agree that borders get changed by war!

 

[BayernMan]

My mistake! I thought you were looking for answers? Not novelty or cleverness, but reality.

The State of Israel as we know it today was a result of WWII and perceived “owners” of the land at that time. Subsequent wars in the region have moved some of those boundaries. If you talk to a few people from other countries in, say, Eastern or Central Europe, you may find they would agree that borders get changed by war!

Franky I have no personal ties to borders. I think they are simply a function of dates and fundamentally humans should go wherever they want for a better life. I’ve always been partial towards Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s famous saying on fences.

That said, saying thats reality and one should just deal with it says more about you because that is what folks like Sinwar, Putin, Ben-Gvir, and Khamenei say to justify their actions. If that’s the world you feel is worth leaving behind then good luck.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Franky I have no personal ties to borders. I think they are simply a function of dates and fundamentally humans should go wherever they want for a better life. I’ve always been partial towards Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s famous saying on fences.

That said, saying thats reality and one should just deal with it says more about you because that is what folks like Sinwar, Putin, Ben-Gvir, and Khamenei say to justify their actions. If that’s the world you feel is worth leaving behind then good luck.

See what you did there?

You whined. I merely pointed out the reality of the situation.

You then gave me some flowery prose and didn’t quote a quote, but gave me the author of the quote, as if it’s a test whether I know the quote from the author’s name.

Then, in closing, you liken my statement of fact to be the same sensibility as that of murderous dictators.

Charming…or is that cunty???

This is where i tell you to go fuck yourself and stop asking stupid questions if you don’t want straightforward factual answers. Is it because they strike a little close to home, perhaps?!

Have I wandered into an episode of Fawlty Towers?!

 

[BayernMan]

See what you did there?

You whined. I merely pointed out the reality of the situation.

You then gave me some flowery prose and didn’t quote a quote, but gave me the author of the quote, as if it’s a test whether i know the quote.

Then, in closing, you liken my statement of fact to be the same sensibility of murderous dictators.

Charming.

This is where i tell you to go fuck yourself and stop asking stupid questions if you don’t want straightforward factual answers. Is it because they strike a little close to home, perhaps?!

Have I wandered into an episode of Fawlty Towers?!

Lol! You’re a sensitive one. Good day to you sir.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Lol! You’re a sensitive one. Good day to you sir.

It’s not being “sensitive” to be compared to murderous dictators and being told who I am by some anonymous twat on an Internet forum, no matter how much you LOL after accomplishing the feat.

Borders, especially the ones you appear to dislike, are drawn by war. I’d have thought a BayernMan would understand that more than most. It’s neither novel nor particularly interesting, but you asked, I answered…then you turned into a dick and laughed it off.

“Now, I’m getting the word…”

 

[BayernMan]

It’s not being “sensitive” to be compared to murderous dictators and being told who I am by some anonymous twat on an Internet forum, no matter how much you LOL after accomplishing the feat.

Borders, especially the ones you appear to dislike, are drawn by war. I’d have thought a BayernMan would understand that more than most. It’s neither novel nor particularly interesting, but you asked, I answered…then you turned into a dick and laughed it off.

“Now, I’m getting the word…”

Well sorry if you feel offended. It is what it is…

 

[BayernMan]

This meeting sounds like it went exactly as one would expect.

 

[SebastianBlue]

See what you did there?

You whined. I merely pointed out the reality of the situation.

You then gave me some flowery prose and didn’t quote a quote, but gave me the author of the quote, as if it’s a test whether I know the quote from the author’s name.

Then, in closing, you liken my statement of fact to be the same sensibility as that of murderous dictators.

Charming…or is that cunty???

This is where i tell you to go fuck yourself and stop asking stupid questions if you don’t want straightforward factual answers. Is it because they strike a little close to home, perhaps?!

Have I wandered into an episode of Fawlty Towers?!

But he is right, mate. The argument you are making is the same one used by murderous dictators and terrorist organisations (including Hamas) to justify their actions.

You are essentially matter-of-factly saying that ‘might is right’ and ‘to the victors belong the spoils’ regardless of what the ‘mighty victors’ did to “win”. You can say it is the reality as much as you like, but we aren’t really debating what has been in this thread (or in the wider world)—most rational, knowledgable observers know what has come before in history. What were are trying to parse out is what should be, and how that new reality could be brought about. That is the way you change things (hopefully for the better).

There is no need at all for a thread or any debate outside of it, if we are all just meant to accept what has come before will always be, specifically that “the winners wrote the rules and the losers have to live with them”. That is brutal, cold, totalitarian thinking, which is absolutely what the likes of Hitler, Putin, Ben Gvir, Sinwar, and countless other murderous entities have operated under for thousands of years.

Them having done so isn’t actually an answer to “why”. It’s just a statement of history. “Why” requires one to justify that mindset and the acts that follow. And no human-centred thinker could do that, for good reason. At which point, an alternative path needs to be developed to divert events and conditions toward humanist principles.

Ultimately, if you don’t want to be compared to murderous dictators and horrific terrorist groups, don’t make the same arguments to justify their actions as they have, whilst ignoring the realities of those actions and how they contravene humanist principles.

 

[Vic]

I don't really see the point in this argument. The fault of this lies with the politics of the Israeli government which I criticise and do not support. Not everybody in Israel supports Netanyahu.

Let's try to avoid that given the hypocrisy that you question Israeli nationalist votes for Netanyahu but you don't question the Palestinian nationalist support for the current terrorist authority in Gaza.

I don't know what the solution to the current problem is but it is not the removal of Israel as a nation state or the prevention of Jewish people from exercising their rights. If that right is removed then what are we talking about other than the argument that Israel should not exist?

Or are you saying that instead Israel should be some mashed up state of whoever lived there before and not much else given they're now all banned from living there and can't be allowed the right to vote etc?

What hypocrisy? You're making an argument from silence. Not everybody in Gaza supports Hamas, and possibly no-one would if Netanyahu hadn't fostered Hamas to weaken the Palestinian Authority and wreck a two-state solution.

Every Jew moving to Israel needs water and land, and too much of both has already been stolen from Palestinians, so on that basis I would question their "right of return" to a land where they've never lived at the expense of Palestinians' right to return to where they did live and to land stolen from them.

There probably is no point to the argument, as sadly you either just don't know enough or simply haven't made much attempt to understand the Palestinian cause.

 

[Vic]

If all the settlements were returned and a Palestinian state established on those lines with an Israeli state existing alongside then would there be peace? Really? Is that what Hamas is demanding?

Well, they've effectively accepted since 2017 the concept of a Palestinian state in part of Palestine, but not that they would give up the claim to the whole land, from the river to the sea (just like Netanyahu hasn't given up believing that Israel should expand from the river to the sea). Whether that means peace is another matter. But it's 50 years since Cyprus was divided and hostilities ceased, so unless you want to continue the genocide to "eliminate" Hamas, it might seem an improvement on the present situation. (Cue the Israeli spokesman today claiming that what Israel is doing in Gaza is like what we'd do if someone invaded Cornwall, which is a crazy comparison... "In order to liberate Cornwall, we destroyed everything")

Hamas agrees to two-state solution, technocratic Gaza gov't with Palestinian Authority | The Jerusalem Post

In contradiction to a slew of previous public comments, Hamas reportedly is receptive to joining the PA on should there be a two-state solution on the political horizon.

www.jpost.com

 

[BayernMan]

Piers is a tit but I’ll give him props here even if it’s for show. The 30 second pause around the 2 min mark felt like several hours…l

 

[BayernMan]

You tell em Miller!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

But he is right, mate. The argument you are making is the same one used by murderous dictators and terrorist organisations (including Hamas) to justify their actions.

You are essentially matter-of-factly saying that ‘might is right’ and ‘to the victors belong the spoils’ regardless of what the ‘mighty victors’ did to “win”. You can say it is the reality as much as you like, but we aren’t really debating what has been in this thread (or in the wider world)—most rational, knowledgable observers know what has come before in history. What were are trying to parse out is what should be, and how that new reality could be brought about. That is the way you change things (hopefully for the better).

There is no need at all for a thread or any debate outside of it, if we are all just meant to accept what has come before will always be, specifically that “the winners wrote the rules and the losers have to live with them”. That is brutal, cold, totalitarian thinking, which is absolutely what the likes of Hitler, Putin, Ben Gvir, Sinwar, and countless other murderous entities have operated under for thousands of years.

Them having done so isn’t actually an answer to “why”. It’s just a statement of history. “Why” requires one to justify that mindset and the acts that follow. And no human-centred thinker could do that, for good reason. At which point, an alternative path needs to be developed to divert events and conditions toward humanist principles.

Ultimately, if you don’t want to be compared to murderous dictators and horrific terrorist groups, don’t make the same arguments to justify their actions as they have, whilst ignoring the realities of those actions and how they contravene humanist principles.

The debate YOU are having might be what should be, but that wasn’t the “debate” WE were having before you decided to intervene.

And, for the record here in Snowflake Central, I wasn’t even condoning past borders being drawn as part of a surrender or domination pact. I was merely illustrating that it is USUALLY how borders are drawn. There was ZERO JUSTIFICATION OF METHODS of achieving those results, only an acknowledgement of the facts.

If Bluemoon is outstanding at one thing, it’s taking the wrong end of the stick and not running with it until they’re tripped by their own.

However, I appreciate you stopping by to add your voice to the “murderous dictator” comparison. Nice.

 

[SebastianBlue]

The debate YOU are having might be what should be, but that wasn’t the “debate” WE were having before you decided to intervene.

And, for the record here in Snowflake Central, I wasn’t even condoning past borders being drawn as part of a surrender or domination pact. I was merely illustrating that it is USUALLY how borders are drawn. There was ZERO JUSTIFICATION OF METHODS of achieving those results, only an acknowledgement of the facts.

If Bluemoon is outstanding at one thing, it’s taking the wrong end of the stick and not running with it until they’re tripped by their own.

However, I appreciate you stopping by to add your voice to the “murderous dictator” comparison. Nice.

I don’t think you were having the same debate as the person you were responding to.

They asked a question and you responded with an answer to a question, but not their question.

And your answer was one that is used by murderous dictators. So, again, if you don’t want the comparisons, don’t say or do things that make the comparisons easy to make.

There’s really no way to take your original response in the wrong of context.

 

[Vic]

Because the winners write the new rules and the losers have to live with them…until another war changes that. So far, it hasn’t.

So the Palestinians were right to wage war against the establishment of a Jewish state? Or now, if Hamas win, and we get a free Palestine from the river to the sea, that's fine till the next war?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

So the Palestinians were right to wage war against the establishment of a Jewish state? Or now, if Hamas win, and we get a free Palestine from the river to the sea, that's fine till the next war?

Who said ANY of this was “fine” or that the concept of the winners of a war keeping their “spoils” was great and righteous?

Way too many of you are so up your own arses with hypotheticals you think prove you’re in the right, you project feelings and sensibilities on words that are such an outrageous reach as to be ridiculous…as in worthy of ridicule.

The sooner the war is over and the squabbles can be about who owns which patch of sand again, the better, because you’ve all become SO fucking boring.

Enjoy the circle jerk of oh-so-righteous indignation from your keyboards.

 

[BayernMan]

 

[SebastianBlue]

Who said ANY of this was “fine” or that the concept of the winners of a war keeping their “spoils” was great and righteous?

Way too many of you are so up your own arses with hypotheticals you think prove you’re in the right, you project feelings and sensibilities on words that are such an outrageous reach as to be ridiculous…as in worthy of ridicule.

The sooner the war is over and the squabbles can be about who owns which patch of sand again, the better, because you’ve all become SO fucking boring.

Enjoy the circle jerk of oh-so-righteous indignation from your keyboards.

It is ok to admit your original statement was not written correctly to reflect what you were trying to convey. We’ve all done it, many times.

But the doubling down with non-sequitur, strawman arguments, and personal insults to back an obviously problematic post is stripping away at your credibility.

There is nothing hypothetical about your comment.

The logical continuation of your comment is that if Hamas win this conflict Jewish people just have to accept the outcome.

You don’t think that is problematic?

Or perhaps your original comment was just written poorly and you meant something else entirely?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

It is ok to admit your original statement was not written correctly to reflect what you were trying to convey. We’ve all done it, many times.

I didn’t do that, but you’re not the first person to misread and misunderstand others. It’s not just your fault.

But the doubling down with non-sequitur, strawman arguments, and personal insults to back an obviously problematic post is stripping away at your credibility.

There is nothing hypothetical about your comment.

Indeed, there is nothing hypothetical, but everything historical. European bigotry towards Jews meant the winners of the war had to find a place for those against whom crimes against humanity had been committed. Those winners carved up land to accommodate others.

This is not in the slightest hypothetical, so stop it already.

And, who are these “indigenous people” of whom you speak?! How long is your memory…and history?

The logical continuation of your comment is that if Hamas win this conflict Jewish people just have to accept the outcome.

That’s about as simple-minded of a ridiculous hypothetical as you could make. Bravo! Not what I said, but bravo nonetheless! What next, Fonzie? Jumping the shark?

You don’t think that is problematic?

Or perhaps your original comment was just written poorly and you meant something else entirely?

Nice try. More questions! Writes itself.

B.O.R.I.N.G.