Humor me. As a third party with no side in the fight, what is the correct response from Israel to the massacre of citizens?
Obviously this isn’t it.
So what is the answer, ignoring anything before the inciting attack from Hamas, from either side, what is the cause effect reaction that you would deem appropriate by Israel?
Unfortunately, they did with the comment that Israel shouldn’t exist. They are an anti-semite who doesn’t believe the millions of Jewish people who lived in the pre 1948 Palestine deserve a place to live.
When the Jewish state was formed by the UN, five Arab armies invaded, and since that time most of Israel’s neighbors have expressly stated that they want to destroy Israel. Only Egypt and Jordan have recognized their borders, and that was after losing during the 6 day war when Egypt once again threatened Israels existence by cutting off the tiran Straits. When the borders were recognized, Israel returned land they seized during the conflict to Egypt, namely the Sinai peninsula. Twenty some years later, Jordan followed suit.
The remaining neighbors have ceaselessly saber rattled, attacked, and conducted terrorist acts. Just today a Hezbollah general stated that this was a war of existence; either Israel exists or the Arab alliance exists.
Which isn’t to say that I condone the settlers in the West Bank, and other things that Israel has done. But they are a small nation surrounded by religious states that want them destroyed. Back in 2006 Israel learned that disproportionate response is the only thing that seems to work, when Hezbollah attacked and Israel responded with 30 days of shelling Beirut, leaving the Hezbollah leader to infamously say they wouldn’t have attacked if they knew the response would be so drastic.
So I’m all for holding Israel to international standards of warfare. But people who say that “Israel existing is the reason for the conflict” can bugger off as far as I care since they are either an anti-semite, pandering to religious states, or desperately ignorant of world history.
Long story short, there is no proper response besides dissolving the country and leaving. The Israeli government is incentivized to wipe out Palestinians, and whatever decisions they make are to that end.
I don’t think there is a correct response or any intelligent response at all, I think we’re just watching a pattern that will repeat until someone finds a way to lasting peace.
But the usual reply is “well Israel is oppressing Palestine (so they actually struck first/it’s justified)”
Yeah they didn’t move into someone’s house. They have had a continuous presence in the area since biblical times. There was no country of Palestine. Ever. It was always controlled by someone else. Israel came into being by accepting a deal offered. And the international community accepted them as an independent country state. There was already a civil war between the populations living there once the UN plan was passed. Some people left due to the civil war. British withdrew. Israel formed official. Arab countries attacked saying they’d kill all of the Jews there. They did not. Then they did not again. And again. They did, however, in one form or other expel their Jews to Israel.
What is the action that you would deem correct and just in response to the attack by Hamas that started this latest series of events?
I do not discount the past, Israel’s culpability in escalation, human rights violations by its military members, and politics that favor them over Palestinians. I do not discount the international error of the two-state solution imposed by external countries.
I am asking, in response to 1400 dead civilians IN THE PRESENT, what any nation’s correct action is as a response. It is easy to decry the current decision, but I have heard little proposals to the contrary of what perfect looks like for an Israeli response.
So, IGNORING WHAT CAME BEFORE THE EVENTS THE ARE CURRENTLY UNFOLDING, what would you have deemed the correct response?
Either be killed by terrorists, or dissolve your entire society and nation state.
Israel would of course not see either of these solutions as options.
I am not being disingenuous, I acknowledged history. I am not blind to the motivations of either party. These latest events were started by choice, when any other action could have been chosen but to behead children in diapers.
According to your answer, the only right act appears to be dissolving their entire country and giving it to the people who kidnapped their people in this latest round of violence. I can’t think this makes sense in any other situation, so it’s can’t here.
Something between doing nothing and what they are doing as middle ground in response has to exist as an option that is acceptable.
If the only option is complete dissolution of a nation state to avoid bloodshed, it is effectively not an option. Propose a solution that isn’t the continued deaths and is not the total dissolution of a nation state, which no nation in earth would agree to.
What exists as an option in response besides these two extremes?
lol Lemmy is completely filled with trash you cannot even get a proper answer to your question. The “free palestine” and “think of the children” faction demands Israel stops defending itself and just roll over and die. They cannot provide a workable solution.
Build a new jewrusalem/jewlandia out in the desert. With blackjack, and hookers. Israel gets 3.8 billion a year just from the US. Hire a fuckin contractor that isn’t a defense contractor for once.
Are you talking about Gaza or the West Bank? Gaza relations were not great but actually stabilizing in recent years until this attack. The West Bank, what most people refer to as Palestine is more complicated because of the three districts established during the 1949 armistice.
Arguably, Hamas attacked now precisely because they don’t want relations between Israel and the Arab world to normalize like they have with Egypt and Jordan.
I have absolutely no idea what the right course of action would have been. Perhaps holding back on the invasion, and then firing Netanyahu. Then having an actual negotiator in to discuss Gaza / Palestine with the leaders (not Hamas). Maybe giving 1 week to reach an agreement and release hostages, or Israel invades and gloves are off.
Negotiating with them would give them reason to take hostages again.
Terrorism definition: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
So if you reward violence with success to political wins, this would give violence a reason to happen more as a tool. This obviously isn’t an answer if you are Israel wanting to prevent your citizen and other nations being killed / violently victimized to force capitulation of your government.
So from their perspective, or any other government of the world, this is a non starter.
One of the issues is that there are no leaders apart from Hamas in Gaza. It is possible that the majority of the population would want different ones (there is not much evidence of that, but it’s difficult to get that information), but Hamas made sure that there are none.
Humor me. As a third party with no side in the fight, what is the correct response from Israel to the massacre of citizens?
Obviously this isn’t it.
So what is the answer, ignoring anything before the inciting attack from Hamas, from either side, what is the cause effect reaction that you would deem appropriate by Israel?
Israel has occupied Palestinians for 75 years.
That doesn’t answer my question. Nor is it 100% historically accurate.
How historically accurate would you say it is?
deleted by creator
There is no ‘proper response’, as Israel existing is the reason for the conflict.
Isreal’s proper response was to call them terrorists, garner international support, and continue their genocide against Palestinians.
This didn’t answer my question.
Unfortunately, they did with the comment that Israel shouldn’t exist. They are an anti-semite who doesn’t believe the millions of Jewish people who lived in the pre 1948 Palestine deserve a place to live.
When the Jewish state was formed by the UN, five Arab armies invaded, and since that time most of Israel’s neighbors have expressly stated that they want to destroy Israel. Only Egypt and Jordan have recognized their borders, and that was after losing during the 6 day war when Egypt once again threatened Israels existence by cutting off the tiran Straits. When the borders were recognized, Israel returned land they seized during the conflict to Egypt, namely the Sinai peninsula. Twenty some years later, Jordan followed suit.
The remaining neighbors have ceaselessly saber rattled, attacked, and conducted terrorist acts. Just today a Hezbollah general stated that this was a war of existence; either Israel exists or the Arab alliance exists.
Which isn’t to say that I condone the settlers in the West Bank, and other things that Israel has done. But they are a small nation surrounded by religious states that want them destroyed. Back in 2006 Israel learned that disproportionate response is the only thing that seems to work, when Hezbollah attacked and Israel responded with 30 days of shelling Beirut, leaving the Hezbollah leader to infamously say they wouldn’t have attacked if they knew the response would be so drastic.
So I’m all for holding Israel to international standards of warfare. But people who say that “Israel existing is the reason for the conflict” can bugger off as far as I care since they are either an anti-semite, pandering to religious states, or desperately ignorant of world history.
Long story short, there is no proper response besides dissolving the country and leaving. The Israeli government is incentivized to wipe out Palestinians, and whatever decisions they make are to that end.
deleted by creator
If the only proper response is discontinued existence, then you have left no possible response.
I don’t think there is a correct response or any intelligent response at all, I think we’re just watching a pattern that will repeat until someone finds a way to lasting peace.
But the usual reply is “well Israel is oppressing Palestine (so they actually struck first/it’s justified)”
Realize that their strategy for the past 16 years isn’t working, sign a ceasefire, follow it and get started on peace again?
deleted by creator
Yeah they didn’t move into someone’s house. They have had a continuous presence in the area since biblical times. There was no country of Palestine. Ever. It was always controlled by someone else. Israel came into being by accepting a deal offered. And the international community accepted them as an independent country state. There was already a civil war between the populations living there once the UN plan was passed. Some people left due to the civil war. British withdrew. Israel formed official. Arab countries attacked saying they’d kill all of the Jews there. They did not. Then they did not again. And again. They did, however, in one form or other expel their Jews to Israel.
Let me try again.
What is the action that you would deem correct and just in response to the attack by Hamas that started this latest series of events?
I do not discount the past, Israel’s culpability in escalation, human rights violations by its military members, and politics that favor them over Palestinians. I do not discount the international error of the two-state solution imposed by external countries.
I am asking, in response to 1400 dead civilians IN THE PRESENT, what any nation’s correct action is as a response. It is easy to decry the current decision, but I have heard little proposals to the contrary of what perfect looks like for an Israeli response.
So, IGNORING WHAT CAME BEFORE THE EVENTS THE ARE CURRENTLY UNFOLDING, what would you have deemed the correct response?
deleted by creator
this leaves only two outcomes.
Either be killed by terrorists, or dissolve your entire society and nation state.
Israel would of course not see either of these solutions as options.
I am not being disingenuous, I acknowledged history. I am not blind to the motivations of either party. These latest events were started by choice, when any other action could have been chosen but to behead children in diapers.
According to your answer, the only right act appears to be dissolving their entire country and giving it to the people who kidnapped their people in this latest round of violence. I can’t think this makes sense in any other situation, so it’s can’t here.
Something between doing nothing and what they are doing as middle ground in response has to exist as an option that is acceptable.
If the only option is complete dissolution of a nation state to avoid bloodshed, it is effectively not an option. Propose a solution that isn’t the continued deaths and is not the total dissolution of a nation state, which no nation in earth would agree to.
What exists as an option in response besides these two extremes?
lol Lemmy is completely filled with trash you cannot even get a proper answer to your question. The “free palestine” and “think of the children” faction demands Israel stops defending itself and just roll over and die. They cannot provide a workable solution.
deleted by creator
That seems to be you declining to provide an example of a reasonable response then.
deleted by creator
Build a new jewrusalem/jewlandia out in the desert. With blackjack, and hookers. Israel gets 3.8 billion a year just from the US. Hire a fuckin contractor that isn’t a defense contractor for once.
Are you talking about Gaza or the West Bank? Gaza relations were not great but actually stabilizing in recent years until this attack. The West Bank, what most people refer to as Palestine is more complicated because of the three districts established during the 1949 armistice.
Arguably, Hamas attacked now precisely because they don’t want relations between Israel and the Arab world to normalize like they have with Egypt and Jordan.
I have absolutely no idea what the right course of action would have been. Perhaps holding back on the invasion, and then firing Netanyahu. Then having an actual negotiator in to discuss Gaza / Palestine with the leaders (not Hamas). Maybe giving 1 week to reach an agreement and release hostages, or Israel invades and gloves are off.
Negotiating with them would give them reason to take hostages again.
Terrorism definition: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
So if you reward violence with success to political wins, this would give violence a reason to happen more as a tool. This obviously isn’t an answer if you are Israel wanting to prevent your citizen and other nations being killed / violently victimized to force capitulation of your government.
So from their perspective, or any other government of the world, this is a non starter.
One of the issues is that there are no leaders apart from Hamas in Gaza. It is possible that the majority of the population would want different ones (there is not much evidence of that, but it’s difficult to get that information), but Hamas made sure that there are none.
The leadership of Gaza is Hamas. Unequivocally.
Hamas was elected to power then pulled the ladder up behind them suspending all future elections.
All officials in the Gaza government are Hamas.
Elections were suspended in the West Bank because there is a real chance Hamas would win an election there today.
This isn’t a case of a tyrannical overlord ruling over the Palestinian people without their consent.
Most supported and still support the organization.
They’ll tell you that israel needs to apologize, keel over and die. or at least take some steps towards loosing it’s capacity for self defense.
Did you lift this from my bear analogy the other day? If not, I guess we have eerily similar thought patterns.