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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you lift this from my bear analogy the other day? If not, I guess we have eerily similar thought patterns.
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?
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.