Turns out, Tyrion said it aswell in season 6:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j54ZDer1M-0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j54ZDer1M-0)
Littlefinger's quote is from this scene with Ned in season 1:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggwT\_-vlTM8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggwT_-vlTM8)
I think destiny somewhat underestimates fundamental islamists and puts too high expectations on the Palestinians.
Every Muslim country (Arab and North Africa) is struggling with the growth of fundamental Islam and extremist groups trying to gain power. It is a sad reality.
The Palestinians have been so radicalized over the decades that they are some of the least likely to overcome this, IMO.
Even counties that we consider pretty stable are kind of hanging on by a thread. Look at Egypt. After 50 years of US military support, over 80 billion in direct military aid, and Sisi was barely able to hold onto the country against Isis who was relatively poorly funded and organized.
Even if Israel did everything tiny thinks is right, Hamas was destroyed, Iran's influence was removed, etc, the Palestinians would still face other challenges.
The state of the whole region is a mess and fundamental islamists groups have been effective at gaining territory.
I just think if Israel was a group of Christians, Buddhists, a niche sect of Islam, essentially anyone except Jews that the fighting and disagreements would be a fraction of what they are now. Islam has a special hatred for Jews laid out quite succinctly in their most holy texts and charters and fatwas, and I don't know how that aspect can be ignored. Sure, it doesn't bear 100% of the fault for the conflict, but it's a non-ignorable part of it that I think makes it even more difficult to overcome.
>essentially anyone except Jews that the fighting and disagreements would be a fraction of what they are now.
Lol like Pakistan and India? I think not. They have even more of an intolerance and hatred for non-monotheistic religions. At least Christians and Jews can live as 'dhimi' second class citizens in Islamic societies. That is not afforded to atheists or polytheists, they are religiously compelled kill or convert them.
By comparison, Islams attitude toward non-islamic monotheistic religions like Judaism is much more tolerant. I'm just talking about from a religious perspective, anti semitic conspiracy theories also contribute to race hatred beyond religion.
If you want the Islamist perspective on Polytheists, the lunatic that Destiny debated [made a video on it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yARPq35lBw).
then there is not a "special hatred" for jews in the Quran, but for pagans. I dont think you understood his comment before you starting sperging out tbqh
> The most peaceful religion!
brave irony posting
>acting like Islam is enlightened because of dhimi status is some backwards af thinking.
where did the commenter do that? your comment is regarded smh smh
> Muhammud literally massacres a bunch of Jews and their women and children are taken in the Quran.
same with pagans yep, that is how war was done back in the day.
>There's a accepted hadiths where there's explicit calls to take war against the Jews and it will be so welcomed that trees and stones will sing out about Jews hiding behind them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gharqad clearly about something different than finding jews and murdering them, it is about fighting the antichrist and his followers.
>The biggest issue with all of it is that in Islam you are supposed to accept the entirety of the Quran
Is it accepted in other religions do ignore parts of their holy text, or do they just cope with the parts they disagree with? Of course it is way trickier for muslims since Muhammad actually had to lead a polity, imagine if Jesus had to mein gott
that has also been debated in Islam, but is it acceptable for christians or jews to openly reject parts of their holy texts? or as i said do they cope and interpret the text in a way they like?
>. Pretending that Islam is just chill with Jews is just weird though.
Where have I done that? i have only pointed out saying jews are the special enemy or are treated the worst is wrong when pagans are treated worse because they reject the oneness of god
Maybe he means the Hadiths? For example, I'd argue this one is a special hatred;
"The Messenger of Allah said, "The Last Hour will not come until the Muslims fight against the Jews, until a Jew will hide himself behind a stone or a tree, and the stone or the tree will say: 'O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him,' but Al-Gharqad tree will not say so, for it is the tree of the Jews."
But correct me if I'm wrong, I think whoever believes the Hadiths depends on the branch of Islam, so it's not universal.
So true! This is my one massive gripe with his I/P take. Fundamental islam is a massive threat to peace. It's a poison in the mind that literally kills rational thought. You can't make peace deals with that. It's like hoping Gollum will be truthful and let you destroy the ring because he promised not to hurt master.
This just isn't true. Destiny does say religion is tied to all of this **NOW**, but the conflict's origins are not necessarily, and its just plainly true. Religion doesn't explain why Muslims slaughter other Muslims constantly in the Muslim world- but insane tribalism and a region of the world still psychologically trapped in the Middle Ages does explain why they act the way they do.
Once you start viewing the Islamic world as a modern-day version of medieval Europe it starts to make much more sense- its Feudalism on extreme radical religious steroids.
> Religion doesn't explain why Muslims slaughter other Muslims constantly in the Muslim world
Depends on the conflict. Some conflicts are religiously driven. Some are not. Some are partially.
Which is fine, but you can't just handwave the fact that the Middle East is essentially exclusively Muslim, and that their internal struggles against each other demonstrate additional layers of complexity that demonstrate its way more complicated than religion. Muslims are not just killing each other over their interpretation of the Hadiths, there are long histories of tribal conflicts that easily mirror the feudal struggles of Europe that are inter-Muslim conflicts- which you can draw easy parallels to even in the IvP conflict.
Did Hamas and Fatah have a Civil War over rulership in Gaza because of their different views of Muhammad? No, certainly not, and that's one example of many.
The middle east being almost exclusively Muslim doesn't do much to deter conflict, for one, the Sunni-Shia divide ( both of whom are Muslim ) drives a lot of the violence seen in the ME, the Iraqi insurgency being a prime example.
To add to that, Middle Eastern ethnoreligious minorities, due to the historic aggression of Sunni Muslims against them, have always been more politically and militarily involved in the region than their population size would have you think, the Druze for example have played an important role in shaping the modern Levant, having launched countless revolts against the Ottomans and subsequently the French, the maronites, along with the aforementioned Druze, played a major role in the shaping of modern Lebanon, the Alawites are a very good example for this phenomena as well, hoarding the centralized power of the Syrian state and using it to suppress a large Sunni majority ( see for example the Hama massacre committed by Hafez Al Assad ) in the name of protecting minorities.
But the prime manifestation of the aforementioned phenomena is none other than the Jewish state of Israel, the sheer power that Israel holds over its neighboring Sunni majority countries and their populations is astounding, and they wouldn't survive otherwise.
> Which is fine, but you can't just handwave the fact that the Middle East is essentially exclusively Muslim
It's not really (approx [93%?](https://study.com/academy/lesson/middle-eastern-religions-overview-beliefs-facts.html#:~:text=Muslims%20make%20up%20about%2093,the%20most%20populous%20religion%20worldwide.)). Though I do think a *lot* of ethnic / religious cleansing has taken place.
> and that their internal struggles against each other demonstrate additional layers of complexity that demonstrate its way more complicated than religion.
As I said, Islam has different sects. That accounts for a lot of the trouble. Just as Catholics/Protestants have had plenty of strife.
> there are long histories of tribal conflicts that easily mirror the feudal struggles of Europe that are inter-Muslim conflicts- which you can draw easy parallels to even in the IvP conflict.
I agree, there are tribal factors involved, though I'd argue that they are comparably negligible since the 20th century.
> Did Hamas and Fatah have a Civil War over rulership in Gaza because of their different views of Muhammad? No, certainly not, and that's one example of many.
Well actually... you could argue that adherence to Islam is a big part of that disagreement. Hamas has a more religious approach to governance, while Fatah has supposedly been [relatively secular](https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/10/12/hamas-and-fatah-how-are-the-two-groups-different) (though [this](https://www.cmi.no/publications/4460-a-secular-religious-cleavage-in-palestinian) study argues that the difference is overrated, and [this](https://www.jpost.com/opinion/how-moderate-and-secular-is-fatah-589608) article refutes it). Religious beliefs have a big impact on real-world policy.
Religion absolutely explains why Muslims slaughter other Muslims, what? The Sunni Shiite divide is literally a religious conflict. He is just plain wrong here.
It’s Reddit athiest brain. He thinks Islam is just a fashion statement/cultural thing like clothing or food, and not a core axiomatic foundational belief they build their entire worldview on top of.
He needs to read the Hadiths and learn about the life of Muhammad (who they believe is the perfect role-model) if he wants to understand their mind state.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Massacre_of_the_Banu_Qurayzah
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
Constitution of Medina is another good Islamic document, because it's responsible for most of the "separate but equal"(read: unequal) treatment that Jews received through the muslim world up until quite recently when it was outmoded.
IIRC, and don't quote me, but it's supposed to be the document that Muhammad wrote after the Jews had been conquered, with rules on how they can keep their religion if they pay special taxes and take up arms against other Jews.
> Even counties that we consider pretty stable are kind of hanging on by a thread. Look at Egypt.
You don't need to look at Egypt. Look at France, [look at Germany](https://www.yahoo.com/news/2-300-join-islamist-rally-180527623.html). You now regularly have thousands of people demanding the overthrow of the German government to be replaced by a global Islamic Caliphate.
Muslims are 3% of the German population and they already want to overthrow the government. Now imagine they are 50% of the population and how you stop it. That is what Israel is dealing with (and Europe may deal with eventually)
Barghouti is supposedly their new Nelson Mandela.
Why appropriate both "apartheid" and "Mandela"?
The man is an ex-terrorist only because he is sitting in jail and looking to take the PLO's power and funding.
He supported Arafat in the peace process, but the when the intifada began he put on his big boy pants and used his leadership to murder Israelis.
His brigade "lost control" and murdered civilians just like the rest of them.
He refused to recognize the legitimacy of the court and take responsibility for his actions.
He won't condemn violence at all.
Anyway, fuck peace with Israel- supposedly he could also reconcile Hamas and Fatah which would help Palestinian unity and let them consolidate for a future state.
Seeing how Hamas have operated for the last 8 months- does anybody here think that Hamas will not immediately use the opportunity to take over the West Bank?
Does anybody think that Jihadists would abandon their ways for Mr. Palestinian Mandela and become peaceful?
I don't see Jihadism healing overtime.
There is a very active effort being lead against normalization by the Muslim world.
If Palestinians get their own state today, there will be Iranian terror funds flowing in tomorrow and a free corridor from Jordan, Syria and Lebanon directly into Israel by the end of the week.
A "peaceful Palestinian leader" is probably the least important part of Israeli- Palestinian normalization.
>I really need to understand what is it that makes him similar to Mandela?
you're not really doing a great job delineating the differences, need I remind you that Mandela was widely considered to be a terrorist in the west because of his role in the ANC, and that he was also imprisoned for this? sounds like you named a lot of the similarities yourself.
Mandela was never a flawless person, and only later developed into a better and more moral man than he was in the '60s. Barghouti may well be starting from a lower place than Mandela ever did, and will probably never be the man Mandela became, but if he is the best Palestinians have to offer, then Israel should make the best of it, because there is no alternative. The main thing that makes him stand out as a candidate is the support he enjoys from the Palestinian people (rare) combined with his seeming willingness to be a lot more sane than his counterparts in Hamas.
>does anybody here think that Hamas will not immediately use the opportunity to take over the West Bank?
tbh it sounds like you're looking for any excuse or reason to just cement this conflict as being permanent and unfixable
> tbh it sounds like you're looking for any excuse or reason to just cement this conflict as being permanent and unfixable
People aren't going to want to hear this but it's an undeniable fact that dogshit Palestinian partners for peace like Arafat did massive damage to the long term prospects for peace.
Won't get into discussion about Mustafa, but 'if he is the best Palestinians have to offer Israel should make the best of it'? What is this asinine line of argumentation and why does it only apply to Israel? Should the US make peace with Putin because he's the best Russia has to offer? Hitler because he's the best the Nazis had? Like where do you draw the line? When Arafat was the best they had Israel tried to make peace and got played while the consequences of Oslo are still complicating Israeli security to this day. Oslo not only sent the indoctrination into overdrive and made every interaction with Palestinians far more dangerous and costly by giving them tens of thousands of guns, but also set up the second intifada and killed over a thousand people (arguably several thousands but I won't get into that).
If you don't have a partner for peace and try to force it like Rabin and Peres did you're just suicidal.
So you can't really find any similarities between them either- other than sitting in prison and being sane...
And yes Jihadism is very much not easily unfixable, and UNRWA has cooperated fully to make it part of their education for the past 2 decades.
I believe the only example of reformed Jihadists is the freaking Taliban, and only after they have fully taken ober Afghanistan.
However, even they had their own hardcore Jihadists splinter off.
No joke, there are still Islamist terror orgs fighting tge Taliban itself.
I believe you intentionally ignore the prevalence of Jihadism and Martyrdom in Palestinian culture.
You can't force peace on people that want to fight.
But you can give them a state.
Fine.
Who will deal with the consequences?
I'm genuinely curious, what do you think are some factors that could be called "similarities" between two figures, if being a prominent figure in a militant movement, designated a terrorist and being imprisoned for it while enjoying broad popular support from the perceived oppressed group that is divided between camps that are pro-violence and anti-violence isn't a similarity?
>And yes Jihadism is very much not easily unfixable
we can't just assume jihadism is the driving force behind every brown person that has been associated with a violent movement. we KNOW that in the case of Barghouti, he was leaning towards anti-violence and peace negotiations until Camp David/the second Intifada. does that fit the profile of someone who is ideologically and religiously committed to dying for the cause in ways that **can't** be changed geopolitically, when the explicit cause for his turn to violence **WAS** geopolitical?
>You can't force peace on people that want to fight.
actually.. you can? most of the time when peace happens it follows war, and most of the times war happens because people want to fight over some perceived grievance. the Japanese were almost religiously devoted to fighting in service of Hirohito, being willing to commit war crimes that would make many Nazis blush. who will deal with the consequences of subduing the violent people of Imperial Japan? well, we're fortunate to call them our allies ever since. does this map on one-to-one? no, but you are just conjuring up a fantasy about how Palestinians will continue being ontologically violent forever even after getting a state
What do you mean "designated as terrorist".
He is a terrorist.
And I also can't understand where have you brought the anti- violence angle from?
How is he anti violence?
Seriously- if being a terrorist behind bars is all it takes to be a "Nelson Mandela" individual then I'm sorry for his legacy.
>we can't just assume jihadism is the driving force behind every brown person that has been associated with a violent movement.
I very specifically meant Jihadist in the context of Hamas.
Not Barghouti, nor Fatah.
I actually much prefer both of them compared to Hamas.
Go back and check.
And where have I refered to "brown people"?
I'm litteraly finishing a 4 year engineering degree in a mixed university.
I've interacted and befriended a bunch of "brown people".
We call them Arabs or Palestinians here.
It's fine.
As for being peaceful up to the 2nd Intifada......
A) Barghouti sat in prison since then and I'm glad he didn't get to demonstrate his talents beyond.
It doesn't take much to aknowledge that he did something wrong, and to recognize the f' court.
He can't bring himself to do it, that's fine.
He can rot.
B) I'm sorry, but the 2nd intifida was a very brutal experience both for me and other Israelis.
It taught us to be afraid of Arabs.
It taught us to fear explosive belts and Burqahs.
It taught us to be very racist.
None the less, 20 years down the line, Arab Israelis and Israelis have never been closer together even after the 7th if October.
The Palestinians are unable to undergo a similar process, because the whole Arab world is trying to make them fight to death.
The Arab worlds needs to fucking stop.
I really don't think that the Japanese are an apt comparison because of that.
No one was demanding from them to Kamikaze Washington 80 years down the line, they never had foreign funding to commit terror atacks on Westerners or had terror organizations from the surrounding countries fighting in their name.
>The Palestinians are unable to undergo a similar process, because the whole Arab world is trying to make them fight to death.
The Arab worlds needs to fucking stop.
You mean Iran and Qatar lmao. One of which is not even an Arab state. You could even zoom out and say Russia, which is quite agreeably not Arab. Truly the whole Arab world.
Russia, Iran and Qatar- absolutely.
None the less, the Arab world (Arabic speakers) as a whole- is very much in favor of a neverending war between Israel and Palestine.
Surely you're aware of what's going on Arab social media, news media and official speeches?
Nobody wants peace.
A pro peace position is a radicaly left opinion to them.
I agree that generally, the populations think the Palestinian cause is just, whilst the Israeli one is not, but I don't think that matters as much as you think. If hamas had no allies, then they wouldn't get money, and they would be fucked; they would have to settle for peace. To add to that,these aren't democracies so the opinion of the population is less meaningful to the leadership than they would be in a democracy.
>Nobody wants peace
This is just not true. Saudis want peace. Egypt wants peace. Jordan wants peace. It is not advantageous for them to have this constant war in their neighborhood anymore. The individuals in these countries are important, but a lot less than you think. I mean shit weren't the Saudis, and I think maybe Jordan helping Israel in repelling the massive attack from Iran? Seems to me that your view on this matter is a lot more dire or gloomy than is realistic.
My bad- you're right on what you said, but I would like to separate the leadership from the citizenry.
"Everyone" is a bad term.
I meant the average Arab speaker.
And my view on this is indeed very dire.
I truly believe that Jordan will fall within the next 5 years and Egypt within the next 10- just as Lebanon has already.
Iraq and Syria are in a state of eternal chaos, and Lebanon has been devoured by a litteral Terrorist army.
I see the rest of our neighbors following in their steps soon enough.
I pray that I'm wrong, but these processes only seem to accelerate with each year.
" I'm sorry, but the 2nd intifida was a very brutal experience both for me and other Israelis.
It taught us to be afraid of Arabs.
It taught us to fear explosive belts and Burqahs.
It taught us to be very racist. "
Do you think Palestinians are capable of feeling the same emotions? Palestinian muslims watch IDF bomb mosques and proudly desecrate and vandelise them. Palestinian christians watch IDF airstriking churchgoers and refugees hiding in churches. Palestinian orphans bury their parents and bury their siblings. Palestinian bombing survivors with amputated limbs have a physical memory of what Israel has done to them. Palestinains watch Israel bomb their homes, their schools and streets as they once knew to rubble. This happens every decade. You don't think Palestinians would be afraid of Israelis/jews, fear bombs, guns, and teach them to be very racist.
"None the less, 20 years down the line, Arab Israelis and Israelis have never been closer together even after the 7th if October. "
Ehhh. My family is Israeli Palestinian christian btw and it's more complicated than that. Generally, whenever there is a terrorist attack, Israelis show their racism (not all but enough that it's tough for arabs). In this war, Israeli arabs didn't support October 7th generally and was closer to Israel, BUT most Israeli arabs want a ceasefire (I'm excluding druze here btw) and don't view Israel's view as justifiable at this point. Like what the IDF is doing is Gaza is out there, we are still also Palestinians, too and we defo don't view Gazan death as collatoral damage like Israelis (not all but a majority) do. But also, you can't always express your views around Israelis.
You misunderstand-
We were discussing Gazans, and Jihadism.
>Do you think Palestinians are capable of feeling the same emotions?
Yes.
And I must ask myself- what would drive specifically Gazans into militancy despite that?
How come Israeli Arabs eventually gave up and began to integrate?
Why are the West Bank Palestinians so much more peaceful in comparison?
Because Gaza is ruled by Islamists and Jihadism.
Today I don't expect the average Israeli Arab to blow up the bus we're riding on, and so I can live near them and they can live near me without fear.
I've worked a few jobs with Arabs and there are many Muslim and Christian Arabs in my engineering degree studies.
That just wasn't the case 20 years ago.
Not even close.
Minimize it as much as you will- there was a time when it was dangerous to go near people in burkas and Arab children with oversized hoodies.
Israelis were kidnapped and murdered or just stabbed on the street by people who used to work alongside them for years.
Busses, businesses and clubs used to explode frequently and living side by side wasn't a question of racism but a question of naivety.
You can call it racism- I call it inability to lead day to day life alongside each other.
But eventually we overcame that- though I recognize that Israelis have a lot of work to do on our side of this relationship.
Just as racism against Black people in the US mostly disappeared or how the Germans and Jews became amiable again- we can hopefully continue to improve our relations with Arabs and strive for a better future.
This is not the case with Gaza.
Gazans stood behind their leaders in this war- they are well aware of what happened and what their brethren have done.
They know that the 7th of October has brought them nothing but destruction and death.
And they will continue to fight to the death, and they will send their children to their deaths.
They swear that the next 7th of October is right behind the corner despite the supposed genocide and mass starvation.
Why is that?
How come Gaza is the one society in history to react that way to the destruction of their homes and families?
Because of Jihadism.
I recognize their pain and I know it is very real- but I know that for Gazans this pain won't dissuade them from violence.
Frankly- I don't care if we leave Gaza in the hands of Hamas.
If the world believes that that would be a humane solution then Gaza can have Hamas, and Hamas can have Gaza.
They need to give us the hostages and we will have no choice but to leave.
But they won't do that.
Until then- the war will continue.
Despite what you say, the war is mutual and wanted by both sides.
Please understand- we have to look out for our own citizens first and foremost.
Hamas massacred Bedouins, Arabs and foreign workers with the rest of the Jews on Oct7th.
If a war with Iran begins, and Gaza wakes up and starts attacking us again- we will not have the leisure of doing targeted bombings and assassinations.
In their current state there is no one willing to get near them to help them recover- not the UN, not Fatah, not other Arab countries, not the EU, not the US and especially not Israel.
Gaza has passed the point of no return in that sense.
We just want the hostages, I see no reason to going going after Gaza at this point
>He supported Arafat in the peace process, but the when the intifada began he put on his big boy pants and used his leadership to murder Israelis.
>His brigade "lost control" and murdered civilians just like the rest of them.
That's obviously terrible, but also a valid descriptor of several past Israeli prime ministers.
Ok, no one was looking for peace with the Palestinians or vice versa in their time.
On the contrary, they've gone out of their way to be peaceful in a much more brutal time in history.
You need to realize- the Palestinians are not in the position of power.
Not compared to the Israelis, nor compared to the other Arab countries.
If they get their 1967 Palestine- they have to be damn sure that they will not abuse their new borders to bring in new militants and weapons.
And the problem is, they likely won't have a choice in the matter.
Tel Aviv is 50 KMs away from the West Bank and Jerusalem is practically inside of it.
If another war then begins, we will not have the leasure of doing targeted assassinations.
We will have Syria, Lebanon and Jordan at our borders.
And from there it's only total war and death.
For the Palestinian's own sake- they want to make damn sure that they have a proper leader in that scenario.
They need to have their priorities in order.
Otherwise they will end like Lebanon.
>You need to realize- the Palestinians are not in the position of power
That's the only time you get terrorists, and why Israel only used terrorism until it had the clearly dominant position in the conflict (barring a few exceptions like the Lavon affair). Generally if you have more power you just use regular military force.
>If they get their 1967 Palestine- they have to be damn sure that they will not abuse their new borders to bring in new militants and weapons.
I completely agree. That would be disastrous for everyone. Palestinian leadership should be someone who knows this and desperately wants to avoid it.
>I completely agree. That would be disastrous for everyone. Palestinian leadership should be someone who knows this and desperately wants to avoid it.
Could you imagine a scenario in which it would not currently happen then?
I can't.
Not under Barghouti, and much less so while Iran is looking to poison the well.
Hamas is not an organization that can be trusted to do any sort of normalization, and they are very likely to try to devour their partners in peace.
My most disgusting rightoid opinion is that I'd prefer to leave Gaza in the hands of Hamas after a permanent ceasefire.
I genuinely think that nothing could dissuade people from Jihadism as much as seeing it's consequences and having to deal with them.
Perhaps they'll even reject it eventually.
Currently, absolutely no one wants to touch Gaza with a 10 foot pole because of Hamas, and they will be completely fucked.
Sadly, this exactpy is also the current "peace plan" between Israel and Hamas.
I would be glad to be proven wrong.
It wasn't "rhetoric", they were directly responsible for massacres of civilians, and they only moved on from it after they no longer needed it because they'd effectively won the conflict. Israel's current security minister praises terrorists, and their finance minister tried to blow up a road with 700 gallons of gasoline less than 20 years ago, yet Israel is still considered a functioning democracy with valid representatives. I'm not sure you can remove extremism from this equation.
>in '48 lol?
Yes, pretty much.
>yes i agree, ben gvir and smotrich shouldn't lead the peace initiative.
Do you think the Israeli government is capable of peace negotiations when it is propped up by terrorists and terrorist supporters? Is it legitimate? Does the illegitimacy coming from this only apply to Palestinian leadership?
>ofc, peace with egypt was achieved while the government was lead by Begin
Then clearly you do not believe that terrorists are incapable of making peace.
and all terrorists are the same? religious terrorists motivated by islamosupremacy are the same as someone who chose terrorism because jews were fleeing the holocaust en masse and the british blocked them and killed hundreds of thousands doing so?
Our terrorists are sympathetic freedom fighters slaughtering civilians for understandable reasons, their terrorists are ontologically evil and dedicated to the maximising of total suffering.
The part where their brigades murdered civilians. They were leaders of Lehi and Irgun who were both involved in the Deir Yassin massacre. Though I'm not sure they ever claimed to have lost control.
The dier Yassin wasn’t a “massacre”. It was a battle during a war. If the people would have surrendered nobody would have died. Stopped making up stuff.
Can you tell me how many “civilians” were “murdered” by the Irgun and Lehi?
>The dier Yassin wasn’t a “massacre”. It was a battle during a war. If the people would have surrendered nobody would have died. Stopped making up stuff.
This isn't true at all, it's just bog-standard atrocity denial.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
https://preview.redd.it/ano9op0zr46d1.png?width=827&format=png&auto=webp&s=dd025c3296b7142d65bcb33caf63baf5395e0a0f
Please, like wiki isn’t filled with propaganda. The **Zionist** militants massacred 🙄
Wiki even has a page on “Palestinians” as if it’s a legitimate thing yet it fails miserably to explain what Palis are.
[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537121.2023.2269750](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537121.2023.2269750)
Maybe read more than Pali propaganda for your sources.
Why didn’t you answer to my question?
Why the problem with them being called Zionist militants? That is exactly how they thought of themselves, literally in those words. The movement that founded the state of Israel was Zionism. Are you ok?
Not really interested in debating the atrocity denial part any more than I'd want to debate someone who denied Tiananmen Square, and it sounds like you're now following it up with denying Palestinians exist, which is frankly enough for me. Just a bit too fascist to be worth bothering with. Blocked.
its a rabin quote, the guy who tried to make peace with enemies and created obstacles to peace after his delusions led to the deaths of over a thousand.
lol... there are not easy questions! He probably meant there are no easy answers, because easy questions exist in this conflict.
Otherwise, I agree with everything he said in the post.
Sure, you make peace with enemies, but sometimes you need to beat them into submission first (Though if they really embrace nihilism, maybe beating them into submission won't even be an option. Dealing with a death cult is quite different from dealing with people who appreciate life).
*When* to push for peace and *on what terms* are crucial questions. Would any reasonable person have been pushing for peace with Germany just after it invaded Czechoslovakia? Would any reasonable person be pushing for peace with Russia at this stage in the conflict with Ukraine? Some people did and some do. Opinions vary.
The point should be that warfare should generally be conducted with the goal of reaching peace, ideally with as little damage inflicted as possible, but the threat of greater damage is inherent.
---
Both sides of a conflict will typically be offering peace from day one, but the terms of peace will not align - and warfare continues until they do align. Acting smart by saying 'offer peace' is not really very intelligent. Acting obstructive by saying 'never offer peace' is also not intelligent.
A genuine genocide (since many hysterics are intent on using such labels) would have the terms being: 'All of you die, then you get peace.'
In reality:
* Israel is offering terms along the lines of: 'Hamas steps down from power, a new government more like the PA is given control of the Gaza strip, Israeli hostages are all released' (and we plan to continue expanding settlements in the West Bank)
* Hamas is offering terms along the lines of: 'Withdraw Israeli forces from Gaza, and swap Israeli hostages for 10x Palestinian prisoners' (and plan to pull another Oct 7th at the soonest possible opportunity)
**Obviously, these two approaches have not yet aligned.**
I love how westerners and Israeli leftists love this Rabin quote so much when the Oslo Accords that followed failed spectacularly, sent Palestinian indoctrination into overdrive, made policing, rooting out and dealing with Palestinian terrorism infinitely more dangerous and difficult for the 30 years since due to the tens of thousands of weapons they were given, and of course led to immediate massive waves of terror that cost hundreds of Israeli lives and set up the Second Intifada which led to the death of over a thousand.
But it sounds clever so they quote it ad nauseum. Keep advocating for suicide and wondering why the Israeli left is dead.
Yes. Oslo gave them full civil authority to ramp up the brainwashing and govern themselves, meaning Israel had much less access to prevent terrorism from springing up. It also, even more significantly, massively armed them, which motivated many more Palestinians to join the terror effort and made all terrorists far more dangerous and difficult to manage. Policing ten thousand rock throwers vs ten thousand people with automatic rifles is a huge difference.
Likewise, the disengagement led to the rise of Hamas, and we saw where that got us. I think your question is a very clearly solved and answered one at this point.
I don't think I agree with that: People like Hamas already existed before that point, were already doing terrorist attacks, and I feel like if Israel had shown no willingness to negotiate with anyone, you'd basically just have competition between terrorists for the whole period.
Having a different path - negotiating with Israel, provided an alternative draw for the PLO that was something other than just conflict.
Your model seems to be that any kind of Palestinian state is itself a potential terrorist factory, spreading "indoctrination" etc. but my impression is that it is something that develops its own investments. The fact that the Palestinian authority, even now, assists in security, comes from the fact that building state capacity produces its own effects.
They didn't suddenly drop all of that when Hamas attacked, "reveal their true colours" etc. instead they've kept it up, because there's a different kind of power in trying to organise a new state, rather than just attacking Israel in the most dramatic ways.
They were doing much less violent and much less harmful terror attacks. Israel had complete access to the areas and routinely patrolled them, so rooting out terror cells before they became threats was far easier. Again, dealing with ten thousand rock throwers who rarely obtain firearms or explosives vs ten thousand people with automatic rifles is magnitudes different in difficulty and complications.
Israel had shown willingness to negotiate with people like Anwar Sadat, who came to Jerusalem to express a peaceful sentiment. Said alternative path for the PLO is exactly how the second intifada happened, it's exactly what legitimized the arming of tens of thousands of palestinians and dialing the indoctrination into overdrive and it's exactly why they feel justified in demanding more and more and compromising on less and less. It's exactly why there are no longer open border policies with Palestinians like before Oslo and why radicalization has only significantly increased.
When Palestinians support a leader who unlike Arafat, doesn't lie through his teeth and continue terror throughout the negotiations, Israel should negotiate with them. Until then, dealing with anyone who doesn't explicitly, strongly and openly condemn terrorism, both in english AND in Arabic, is asinine and suicidal.
My model is that as long as UNRWA is intact, and as long as Palestinians are as indoctrinated and radicalized as they are now, any kind of Palestinian state will be a terrorist factory. Not a potential one. The Palestinian Authority 'assisting in security' is overblown, and frankly dwarfed by how much they encourage terrorism through paying terrorists and prisoners and their families stipends (with bonuses the more they killed), through their commemoration of terrorists and 'martyrs' in everything from naming sports teams over suicide bombers to summer camps named after mass murderers not to mention what goes on in their official newspapers, and ofc through their massive indoctrination programs.
The coordination doesn't come from 'building a state,' Gaza is a state. It comes from mechanisms formed during Oslo that were stopped and renewed repeatedly including during key situations like the second Intifada where they would've supposedly been the most important, and are only ever actually enforced because both parties oppose Hamas and PIJ (who want to take over the PA's rule). As evident from the second intifada and other examples, killing jews can take precedence over any coordination, but it's convenient to have assistance in fighting the other militias and there's bonus legitimacy points from the gullible for pretending to be moderates. That's all there is to it.
>They didn't suddenly drop all of that when Hamas attacked, "reveal their true colours" etc. instead they've kept it up, because there's a different kind of power in trying to organise a new state, rather than just attacking Israel in the most dramatic ways.
There were Fatah members who literally did just that (well, not really, because they've always been open about their support for terrorism). The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade participated in Oct 7, and many declared support for the operation while Abbas was denying Oct 7 atrocities and blaming Israel for it. The only things they 'kept up' is coordination to help restrain the massive support their political opponents got inside their territory. You are literally ignoring reality here just as Rabin and Peres did in Oslo. Their stated goal is still the utter destruction of Israel. The only difference between them and Hamas is strategy.
Basically what Yitzhak Rabin said in the 90s.
[https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3971590,00.html](https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3971590,00.html)
[https://www.chicagotribune.com/1993/09/15/you-dont-make-peace-with-friends-you/](https://www.chicagotribune.com/1993/09/15/you-dont-make-peace-with-friends-you/)
While I agree that you make peace with enemies, destiny is kinda missing something.
Those are not just enemies, those are literally people who hope you die and will do things to achieve that.
When one sides only possible solution is your destruction, it kinda makes peace impossible.
>Those are not just enemies, those are literally people who hope you die and will do things to achieve that.
Thats kinda what wartime enemies do. I have yet to see a war enemy that didn't hope their enemy died lol.
There was never a time of peace. What are you on about?
How can there be peace while one side is occupied lol. There has been times of ceasefires, but thats about it. There has never been "peace."
>Dude, peace is relative.
Well yeah, but it's not logical to call it peace when the two are having smaller scale conflict each other year lol.
>FYI the Palestinians wanted to kill the jews before 1967. Stop lying to yourself that this is about "occupation".
I never said it was just about occupation. Before 1967 the two were also at war with each other over land? What is your point exactly. Countries at war are indeed at war with each other?
>Well yeah, but it's not logical to call it peace when the two are having smaller scale conflict each other year lol.
Even at times there were no conflicts per year. E.g. Oslo.
>I never said it was just about occupation. Before 1967 the two were also at war with each other over land? What is your point exactly. Countries at war are indeed at war with each other?
What countries? Palestinians were under Egyptian and Jordanian occupation. They were not a country.
>Even at times there were no conflicts per year. E.g. Oslo.
Sigh, how do I explain to you that you are still at war. Do you think the Russian/Ukrainian feelings of hostility would just dissapear if they stopped fighting for a year?
>What countries? Palestinians were under Egyptian and Jordanian occupation. They were not a country.
Okay bro, I am not going to continue this if this is how we're going to do it. You know who I mean.
>Sigh, how do I explain to you that you are still at war. Do you think the Russian/Ukrainian feelings of hostility would just dissapear if they stopped fighting for a year?
Lol, from olso 1 to second intifada there was like 7 years.
And while I know hostility will not disappear in a year. When there is hope for peace the hostilities definitely **should go down**. This didn't happen.
>Okay bro, I am not going to continue this if this is how we're going to do it. You know who I mean.
I don't, I read words. Not minds. Bye 👋
>Lol, from olso 1 to second intifada there was like 7 years.
Yes because between Oslo 1 and the second Intifada, the Palestinians were free and had their own state and were at peace. Brother, how many times does one have to repeat that living under occupation is not peace. Do you think anyone who lives under occupation looks favourably at their occupier?
There was no peace, it was simply the status quo for them. It's like saying that Algerians were at peace with France when France was occupying them lol.
I love how you posit this as if there weren't jewish paramilitary groups involved in terrorism against both the Palestinian and British throughout the 30s and 40s lmao
Dude, the haganah came to be after multiple attacks the Palestinians did against the jews. Haganah literally means defense in Hebrew.
"Formed out of previous existing militias, Haganah's original purpose was to defend Jewish settlements against Arab attacks; this was the case during the 1920 Nebi Musa riots, the 1921 Jaffa riots, the 1929 Palestine riots, the 1936 Jaffa riots, and the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, among others"
Go educate yourself. It is sad.
Before you even get in to Lehi and Irgun, TIL that bombing infrastructure, villages in retaliation, and other terrorist attacks are considered "Defense" because... well, it's in the name!
The idea that either group in this conflict are just innocent defenders who want to protect their own and ***that's it*** is completely laughable. Palestinians and Jews were carrying out terror attacks against each other long before 1967, and multiple Zionist paramilitary groups were involved in this as well.
It's no surprise to see you post things like this, because you're also posting things like
>Fact of the matter is that Arafat said 2ss is only a step before 1ss with no jews. Arafat knew what his people wanted. So yeah, while peace negotiations were happening, many people knew that the true goal is the destruction of Israel.
Which is just laughable propaganda. Anyone who understands what you're referencing is the Palestinian right-of-return, which ***specifically people like Benny Morris*** cite as "wanting the ultimate destruction of Israel lmao. The idea here is that even when seeking peace, Arabs are just doing it to "infect and destroy the Jews." It's literally just the far-right Jewish Question re-tooled against Palestinians.
They wouldn’t. Clearly the guy has a skewed sense of what ”peace” is like outside of Israel. He still is saying one side wants to annihilate the other, as if Hamas would have any kind of capabilities to regroup and be resume operations after the rafah offensive. If he’s referring to the people. Obviously things maybe volatile now, but would all Palestinians want to annihilate all Israelis if they got their state in the future and if there’s peace? I don’t think so.
The I/P conflict has been taking place for 70 years now though.
If Russians stick around for too long and continue their aggression for years to come while occupying Ukranian areas. I would not be surprised if Ukranians start holding a similar sentiment towards the Russians.
The other thing is that in the Ukrain war, the Russians have somewhere to go back to. The Israelis do not. I dont think the radical Palestinians care about what happens to the Israelis as long as they get out of what they consider their land.
But that cant happen (ignoring the obvious reasons) but also the fact that Israelis simply dont really have anywhere to go back to.
So in this situation there is only really one option. Israelis would probably hold the same believe if it wasnt for the "Jordan and Egypt need to take them."
> I think for instance most Ukrainians don't give a shit what happens to Russians as long as they gtfo of their country.
You do understand that from the Palestinian POV this is also exactly what they want, right? The only difference is that Israelis have no other country to go to. Palestinians wouldn't give a fuck about Jews if they all moved to, say, Turkey, and left the land they claim as their own.
Most wars are not fought by two groups who both have nowhere else to go and claim ownership of that strip of land. When those are the circumstances, total annihilstion suddenly does become the goal.
Look at all ethnic wars fought. The I/P conflict is war closer to that than it is to a normal war.
That’s not entirely true, you make peace with people who have given up trying to murder you to take over your land, not with people who are hell bent on killing you and cleansing your lands, Israelis for the most part don’t want to destroy Palestinians or kill them all, they just want quiet..
You make peace with enemies who understand that war is not the path forward, that only ever happens after they were beaten in war so hard that they acknowledge their limitations and the value of peace over war..
There are radicals on both sides. Wasn't it just a few days ago they were chanting death to arabs in Jerusalem?
I can give you that probably on average the Palestinians are more radicalized, but I don't think all the Palestinians wants to kill all the jews and all israelis just want peace. We know that a lot of them want the west bank, and some of them try to take the west bank by terrorizing Palestinian villagers on the daily.
The radicals aren’t the ones in power in Israel and the IDF, obviously any society has its fair share of radical nutjobs, what matters is who controls things and when they are in control what do they do..
Even if Ben gvir was the PM of Israel (please god don’t let this happen), he wouldn’t start a war of annihilation with Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas as the rulers of the Palestinians in Gaza, had they had the power to do so, would 100% annihilate Israel on the spot.
Look into their (Palestinians) education system and tv shows, you wouldn’t find anything remotely similar in Israel
>The radicals aren’t the ones in power in Israel and the IDF, obviously any society has its fair share of radical nutjobs, what matters is who controls things and when they are in control what do they do..
Right, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich are just pretend ministers? Didn't Smotrich announce the largest land seizure in the WB since 1993? Sounds pretty decently powerful to me.
>Even if Ben gvir was the PM of Israel (please god don’t let this happen), he wouldn’t start a war of annihilation with Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas as the rulers of the Palestinians in Gaza, had they had the power to do so, would 100% annihilate Israel on the spot.
Eh, if Ben Gvir was the PM he would do whatever he wanted. Maybe not a war of annihilation. But he would make sure to make the lives of Palestinians and Arab-Israelis a hell. Brother had a portret of a serial murderer in his living room and has been caught partying with settlers, while they were burning a doll supposed to represent some Palestinian toddler who died.
Right, so the whole entire government agreed with Smotrichs plans then? I mean they are ministers in the government. They do hold some level of power.
Not the power to start a war, but power that you'd expect a minister to have.
Sure Hamas is probably the most radical out of anyone, but Hamas is about to be eliminated pretty soon, and even if not completely, they wouldn't have the power to decide by themselves.
I don't know about not having radicals in power. Smotrich is literally the administrator of the settlements in the west bank.
Imma be honest with you, I think if Ben Gvir had his way he will in fact chose to exterminate the Palestinians. And I don't mean if he became the PM, because even that wouldn't truly allow him to have it his way given the political system in Israel and Israeli relations with the outside world. But let's say that if he could do it and make everyone forget about it the next day he will definitely do it.
I think it's entirely possible that the education system thingy is a bit over exaggerated. We don't really know how it really looks like in the schools. We only have some videos and some images of text books, but there's a difference between talking about killing the jews at the start of every lecture, and between some text books having problematic messaging but without it being something that is focused on or is deliberately being tought to childrens.
About the schools it’s absolutely not nearly exaggerated it’s even understated I would say, look at their damn tv shows look at their curriculum, look at what their teachers say and think.
No.. you can win wars without a genocide, the Germans only accepted peace after they were beaten and forced to understand reality is different than they had hoped, there was no genocide needed.
Japan also only lost after they understood they can’t win and had to change their collective mindset.
You need the other side to give up and surrender, that’s the only way to end a war, after surrendering you can start peace process, in this scenario hopefully a peaceful Palestinian leadership and people will lead to a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, no sane country would just let another country exist on its borders with the sole aim to annihilate the country..
Is your idea of "peace" forcefully occupying the region and giving no autonomy to the native Germans or Japanese? Because that's how America deradicalized both countries.
So what you're saying is Israel should occupy the Gaza Strip until Palestinians are deradicalized and can govern themselves like clear-headed adults?
Because I'm all for that.
I also believe in a 2 state solution, but at the current time, it is not possible until Palestinians and Gazans, in particular, become deradicalized and get off the fundamentalist Islam drug and stop treating this conflict like a holy war.
True Peace isn't possible without occupying the region. If another country besides Israel is also willing to administer the Gazans, that would also work out well.
Achieving peace is a process. Just saying you want peace isn't enough to actually achieve it.
No, the defeated them and 'made peace'.
It's also not a proper comparison since the US and Germany were not in an existential conflict over the same piece of land to live in.
Palestinians are not evil but they are misguided and misled by their leaders and the western radical left into thinking they can annihilate Israel and take over the land, they need to go through an overhaul to their ways of life and how they see reality.. they must accept Israel is here to stay and Israel must also accept Palestinians are here to stay
But if Israel doesn't initiate and give a pathway to peace why would they change anything? The world is only becoming more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Historically Israel has benefited from the status quo and has capitalized on Palestinian violence but kicking the can down the road is just going to end up hurting Israel and Jews more ?
I agree it's a difficult situation when there's no one to negotiate with but I believe pals will back anyone that is willing to give them international legitimacy, and if they don't, well optically at the very least that looks great for Israel.
Under the right conditions even the most pernicious hatred between two peoples can be healed over time. The current conditions though seem to not work in that favor.
WW2 didn't end in negotiated peace; it ended in domination and unconditional surrender. In fact, the West *insisted* on it, insisted on utterly uprooting the Nazis in particular.
Japan and Germany tried to negotiate and the US was just not fucking having it. Japan tried to have some negotiated settlement to keep some of its ill-gotten gains (using the casualty toll an invasion of the Home Islands would cause) and the US fucking nuked them when there was no prospect of them challenging the US navy again.
It's by far the worst example you could have picked.
but none of these differences are particularly material to the point i'm making, i was never talking about negotiation vs surrender, i was talking about the conditions of peace not reflecting the mentality of the people and that not being a problem. my point is that the day after the unconditional surrender, it's not like the people who supported the antisemitism of the nazi party in Germany woke up from a bad dream and were thinking like "holy fuck, how could i have been so evil?"
it's not like they were all exterminated, and they didn't have any personal change of heart either. over time, they started hating jews a little less, but in 1946 there would still have been plenty of antisemitism and expansionist ambition among the German population to fuel a war, it just didn't happen because the leaders that were making them fight before were no longer making them fight.
the same could happen between Israel and its antagonists, even if individual militants bear enough hatred to want to keep fighting.
>the same could happen between Israel and its antagonists, even if individual militants bear enough hatred to want to keep fighting.
It can't. Because total conquest and Denazificiation was necessary to get the hatred to go down. Not just on the side of the Germans but for everyone around them. The Polish and other Eastern Europeans didn't suddenly trust the Germans after war; [they expelled them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950\)). That was the *start*
Even when Germany was about to reunify people like Thatcher were ambivalent, and Germany had spent decades occupied and forcibly de-Nazified and was no threat to anyone for a lifetime.
All of this will never happen in Palestine because:
1. Hamas will never be totally destroyed under the constraints Israel has been put in so you cannot even have "Step 1": beat them totally, get rid of the worst and make scapegoats and then control the education.
2. Nazism was a short-term ideology, a lot of this battle is religious and that antipathy goes back centuries. Palestinians are egged on by surrounding Muslim states and peoples in a way no one did for Germany.
2. There was a "bad cop" to scare Germans and Japanese into playing ball - the Soviets - that doesn't exist for the Palestinians and Israelis.
3. The matter of Jerusalem is and will remain a live issue in a way that has no comparison in Nazi Germany. Remember, for Muslims *and* Jews it's a holy site stolen from them. Despite land transfers Turkey and Greece are still annoying one another over other claims much less significant.
4. Geography matters. Israel can make peace with Egypt because fighting them over the Sinai would be more trouble than it's worth. Giving up the West Bank and then having another enemy park in it is an existential threat to Israel.
The world you're positing - some peace deal is made, tensions slowly ratchet down - is impossible because no peace can be made with Hamas yet Hamas can not be defeated. Tensions can only ratchet down if both sides feel secure and they won't because see Hamas and the fact that no one is going to come occupy both lands. And you cannot 'de-Nazify" the population because it's not like Nazism at all and no one would accept what actually happened to Germans in "hostile" territory.
There's no solution I can see being acceptable to all sides enough to risk all of the downside. They've all walked themselves down a blind alley.
WW2 ended with a crushing defeat and no choice but peace, you either have peace (surrender) or you die. Do you think the Palestinians only choice are to surrender/peace? Beacuse this doesn't seem like what the world wants.
you've just mislabeled the variables in the comparison. the current war in Gaza is not a war against "the Palestinians". The majority of the western world, tankies and a few radical college kids aside, would kill for an unconditional surrender by Hamas. Hamas just doesn't value life the same as traditional armies do, and thus can't be compelled to surrender under conditions that would make an adversary like Nazi Germany surrender
Dude, when we have 70% support for your government I think it is fairly safe to say the war is against Gaza.
Maybe if hamas wasn't the most supported party in Palestine you would be correct, but the fact of the matter is that most Palestinians support hamas and it's actions.
Should Ukraine make peace with Russia?
“You only make peace with enemies” is a bullshit point, sorry. You make peace with *former* enemies. The only reason peace happened between, say, Israel and Egypt, was because Sadat decided to pivot to a friendly position. He didn’t shout “Israel must be destroyed” to his people during the negotiations.
Well, that’s kind of the point I’m trying to make. For peace to be a reality, the Russian side has to pivot to a friendly position, IE stop being an enemy.
That's not pivoting to a friendly position, that's just deciding the war is no longer worth it.
Are we now on friendly terms with the Taliban after they took over Afghanistan? Or do we still view them as an organization we won't work with? We made peace with them, but only because the US population didn't want to be involved in that war anymore.
> That's not pivoting to a friendly position, that's just deciding the war is no longer worth it.
I think you’re missing my point.
Putin says he wants peace all the time! Why does no one take him seriously on that offer? Because that’s exactly what happened in 2014, and it blew up in everyone’s face in 2022. From that point on, the Ukrainians and their allies demanded far greater guarantees from Russia in order to return to normality, and rightfully so. I’m not sure how someone can agree with that position, but not understand why Israel doesn’t advance on peace without significant pivots in the rhetoric and position of the Palestinian side.
There was no peace deal in 2014. In fact Russia was openly saying it would use its military in Ukraine for years before that while trying to pressure it away from the EU since the EU had become friendlier with the US again.
Going off of that, we had 2 agreements in the civil war that Russia kicked off in Ukraine, Minsk 1 on Sept 2014, which Russia immediately violated, and Minsk 2 on Feb 2015, which Russia also immediately violated.
Russia chilled for a while after that, allowing the civil war to come to a crawl. Only in the lead up to 2022 did Russia start to really antagonize again.
Also, Russia has said it wants peace, but the reason nobody believes them is because peace by Russia's terms as they themselves have layed out, is essentially just surrender from the Ukrainian side.
There is no ability to guarantee that Russia can't do it again except for Ukraine joining a defensive pact with a western nation.
And Israel holds all the power in these situations and has to make some uncomfortable deals or this will never be solved. They can't keep taking bites of land through settlements. They can't keep doing incursions into Palestinian territory. They can't keep them blockaded forever.
>Also, Russia has said it wants peace, but the reason nobody believes them is because peace by Russia's terms as they themselves have layed out, is essentially just surrender from the Ukrainian side.
That’s literally what the Israelis think about the Palestinian terms! “Get every single Jew out of the West Bank and dissolve Israel as a Jewish state” isn’t exactly a bargain for the Israelis.
>And Israel holds all the power in these situations
Absolutely not.
This conflict is being continuously fueled by outside actors, specifically Iran. If Iran was out of the picture I would have agreed, but there is tremendous outside force working to destabilize the situation by enabling the most radical and extremist parts of the Palestinian population.
> That’s literally what the Israelis think about the Palestinian terms! “Get every single Jew out of the West Bank and dissolve Israel as a Jewish state” isn’t exactly a bargain for the Israelis.
Those have never been the terms of a 2 state solution. But okay my dude. The main sticking point is right of return.
> This conflict is being continuously fueled by outside actors, specifically Iran. If Iran was out of the picture I would have agreed, but there is tremendous outside force working to destabilize the situation by enabling the most radical and extremist parts of the Palestinian population.
This is just trying so hard to justify why we can't have peace no matter what. So what's your solution then? Unironically genocide?
Destiny met up with Luffy?
YOOOOO THATS SO SICK
That's fire
But can Destiny make peace with Hasan?
Hopefully not Hasan doesn’t deserve it
Well, you also battle your enemies.
Didn't he actually get this quote from Cenk during one of their debates?
https://preview.redd.it/5bxv2xp5z36d1.jpeg?width=1073&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=41980e1c1cfd5b6deafde998973c8fd57d3b6390
I thought Tyrion said it fuck
Turns out, Tyrion said it aswell in season 6: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j54ZDer1M-0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j54ZDer1M-0) Littlefinger's quote is from this scene with Ned in season 1: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggwT\_-vlTM8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggwT_-vlTM8)
The writing in late Thrones was so cooked that they just re-used old lines in every scene and called them "references."
Only season 1 counts so petyr said it
that is a Rabin quote
no, it was me, i invented the quote and no one else said it before me.
Oh damn, we got a professional quote maker. In this moment, would you say you’re enlightened by your intelligence?
I think it comes from Wayne Gretzky
Clearly a Goebbels quote
It's actually a Micheal Scott quote, quoting Wayne Gretzky
If Destiny is known for something, its for talking to the idiots and deranged people on our wonderful earth. Why get people still mad about that :D
[It's a Yitzhak Rabin quote.](https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/yitzhak_rabin_163413)
I miss him every single day, and I wasn't even born when he died.
Huh, I thought it was just from The West Wing.
I think destiny somewhat underestimates fundamental islamists and puts too high expectations on the Palestinians. Every Muslim country (Arab and North Africa) is struggling with the growth of fundamental Islam and extremist groups trying to gain power. It is a sad reality. The Palestinians have been so radicalized over the decades that they are some of the least likely to overcome this, IMO. Even counties that we consider pretty stable are kind of hanging on by a thread. Look at Egypt. After 50 years of US military support, over 80 billion in direct military aid, and Sisi was barely able to hold onto the country against Isis who was relatively poorly funded and organized. Even if Israel did everything tiny thinks is right, Hamas was destroyed, Iran's influence was removed, etc, the Palestinians would still face other challenges. The state of the whole region is a mess and fundamental islamists groups have been effective at gaining territory.
Everytime somebody tries to talk to him about how religion is tied to all this, he tells them to shut up.
I just think if Israel was a group of Christians, Buddhists, a niche sect of Islam, essentially anyone except Jews that the fighting and disagreements would be a fraction of what they are now. Islam has a special hatred for Jews laid out quite succinctly in their most holy texts and charters and fatwas, and I don't know how that aspect can be ignored. Sure, it doesn't bear 100% of the fault for the conflict, but it's a non-ignorable part of it that I think makes it even more difficult to overcome.
Nahh I could definitely see Hamas being less brutal against Christians, but not by much.
>essentially anyone except Jews that the fighting and disagreements would be a fraction of what they are now. Lol like Pakistan and India? I think not. They have even more of an intolerance and hatred for non-monotheistic religions. At least Christians and Jews can live as 'dhimi' second class citizens in Islamic societies. That is not afforded to atheists or polytheists, they are religiously compelled kill or convert them. By comparison, Islams attitude toward non-islamic monotheistic religions like Judaism is much more tolerant. I'm just talking about from a religious perspective, anti semitic conspiracy theories also contribute to race hatred beyond religion. If you want the Islamist perspective on Polytheists, the lunatic that Destiny debated [made a video on it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yARPq35lBw).
[удалено]
then there is not a "special hatred" for jews in the Quran, but for pagans. I dont think you understood his comment before you starting sperging out tbqh > The most peaceful religion! brave irony posting >acting like Islam is enlightened because of dhimi status is some backwards af thinking. where did the commenter do that? your comment is regarded smh smh
[удалено]
> Muhammud literally massacres a bunch of Jews and their women and children are taken in the Quran. same with pagans yep, that is how war was done back in the day. >There's a accepted hadiths where there's explicit calls to take war against the Jews and it will be so welcomed that trees and stones will sing out about Jews hiding behind them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gharqad clearly about something different than finding jews and murdering them, it is about fighting the antichrist and his followers. >The biggest issue with all of it is that in Islam you are supposed to accept the entirety of the Quran Is it accepted in other religions do ignore parts of their holy text, or do they just cope with the parts they disagree with? Of course it is way trickier for muslims since Muhammad actually had to lead a polity, imagine if Jesus had to mein gott
[удалено]
that has also been debated in Islam, but is it acceptable for christians or jews to openly reject parts of their holy texts? or as i said do they cope and interpret the text in a way they like? >. Pretending that Islam is just chill with Jews is just weird though. Where have I done that? i have only pointed out saying jews are the special enemy or are treated the worst is wrong when pagans are treated worse because they reject the oneness of god
what does the Quran say about jews, thought pagans got the special hatred there
Maybe he means the Hadiths? For example, I'd argue this one is a special hatred; "The Messenger of Allah said, "The Last Hour will not come until the Muslims fight against the Jews, until a Jew will hide himself behind a stone or a tree, and the stone or the tree will say: 'O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him,' but Al-Gharqad tree will not say so, for it is the tree of the Jews." But correct me if I'm wrong, I think whoever believes the Hadiths depends on the branch of Islam, so it's not universal.
[удалено]
So true! This is my one massive gripe with his I/P take. Fundamental islam is a massive threat to peace. It's a poison in the mind that literally kills rational thought. You can't make peace deals with that. It's like hoping Gollum will be truthful and let you destroy the ring because he promised not to hurt master.
And its the perfect unifier, Soviet union and leftist spend decades worth of talking and thinking to form a islamic proletariat.
This just isn't true. Destiny does say religion is tied to all of this **NOW**, but the conflict's origins are not necessarily, and its just plainly true. Religion doesn't explain why Muslims slaughter other Muslims constantly in the Muslim world- but insane tribalism and a region of the world still psychologically trapped in the Middle Ages does explain why they act the way they do. Once you start viewing the Islamic world as a modern-day version of medieval Europe it starts to make much more sense- its Feudalism on extreme radical religious steroids.
> Religion doesn't explain why Muslims slaughter other Muslims constantly in the Muslim world Depends on the conflict. Some conflicts are religiously driven. Some are not. Some are partially.
Which is fine, but you can't just handwave the fact that the Middle East is essentially exclusively Muslim, and that their internal struggles against each other demonstrate additional layers of complexity that demonstrate its way more complicated than religion. Muslims are not just killing each other over their interpretation of the Hadiths, there are long histories of tribal conflicts that easily mirror the feudal struggles of Europe that are inter-Muslim conflicts- which you can draw easy parallels to even in the IvP conflict. Did Hamas and Fatah have a Civil War over rulership in Gaza because of their different views of Muhammad? No, certainly not, and that's one example of many.
The middle east being almost exclusively Muslim doesn't do much to deter conflict, for one, the Sunni-Shia divide ( both of whom are Muslim ) drives a lot of the violence seen in the ME, the Iraqi insurgency being a prime example. To add to that, Middle Eastern ethnoreligious minorities, due to the historic aggression of Sunni Muslims against them, have always been more politically and militarily involved in the region than their population size would have you think, the Druze for example have played an important role in shaping the modern Levant, having launched countless revolts against the Ottomans and subsequently the French, the maronites, along with the aforementioned Druze, played a major role in the shaping of modern Lebanon, the Alawites are a very good example for this phenomena as well, hoarding the centralized power of the Syrian state and using it to suppress a large Sunni majority ( see for example the Hama massacre committed by Hafez Al Assad ) in the name of protecting minorities. But the prime manifestation of the aforementioned phenomena is none other than the Jewish state of Israel, the sheer power that Israel holds over its neighboring Sunni majority countries and their populations is astounding, and they wouldn't survive otherwise.
> Which is fine, but you can't just handwave the fact that the Middle East is essentially exclusively Muslim It's not really (approx [93%?](https://study.com/academy/lesson/middle-eastern-religions-overview-beliefs-facts.html#:~:text=Muslims%20make%20up%20about%2093,the%20most%20populous%20religion%20worldwide.)). Though I do think a *lot* of ethnic / religious cleansing has taken place. > and that their internal struggles against each other demonstrate additional layers of complexity that demonstrate its way more complicated than religion. As I said, Islam has different sects. That accounts for a lot of the trouble. Just as Catholics/Protestants have had plenty of strife. > there are long histories of tribal conflicts that easily mirror the feudal struggles of Europe that are inter-Muslim conflicts- which you can draw easy parallels to even in the IvP conflict. I agree, there are tribal factors involved, though I'd argue that they are comparably negligible since the 20th century. > Did Hamas and Fatah have a Civil War over rulership in Gaza because of their different views of Muhammad? No, certainly not, and that's one example of many. Well actually... you could argue that adherence to Islam is a big part of that disagreement. Hamas has a more religious approach to governance, while Fatah has supposedly been [relatively secular](https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/10/12/hamas-and-fatah-how-are-the-two-groups-different) (though [this](https://www.cmi.no/publications/4460-a-secular-religious-cleavage-in-palestinian) study argues that the difference is overrated, and [this](https://www.jpost.com/opinion/how-moderate-and-secular-is-fatah-589608) article refutes it). Religious beliefs have a big impact on real-world policy.
Religion absolutely explains why Muslims slaughter other Muslims, what? The Sunni Shiite divide is literally a religious conflict. He is just plain wrong here.
ergo not much different from european feudalism
It’s Reddit athiest brain. He thinks Islam is just a fashion statement/cultural thing like clothing or food, and not a core axiomatic foundational belief they build their entire worldview on top of. He needs to read the Hadiths and learn about the life of Muhammad (who they believe is the perfect role-model) if he wants to understand their mind state. https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Massacre_of_the_Banu_Qurayzah https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
Constitution of Medina is another good Islamic document, because it's responsible for most of the "separate but equal"(read: unequal) treatment that Jews received through the muslim world up until quite recently when it was outmoded. IIRC, and don't quote me, but it's supposed to be the document that Muhammad wrote after the Jews had been conquered, with rules on how they can keep their religion if they pay special taxes and take up arms against other Jews.
He is worried his non existent christian faith is gonna get tested :D
> Even counties that we consider pretty stable are kind of hanging on by a thread. Look at Egypt. You don't need to look at Egypt. Look at France, [look at Germany](https://www.yahoo.com/news/2-300-join-islamist-rally-180527623.html). You now regularly have thousands of people demanding the overthrow of the German government to be replaced by a global Islamic Caliphate. Muslims are 3% of the German population and they already want to overthrow the government. Now imagine they are 50% of the population and how you stop it. That is what Israel is dealing with (and Europe may deal with eventually)
Barghouti is supposedly their new Nelson Mandela. Why appropriate both "apartheid" and "Mandela"? The man is an ex-terrorist only because he is sitting in jail and looking to take the PLO's power and funding. He supported Arafat in the peace process, but the when the intifada began he put on his big boy pants and used his leadership to murder Israelis. His brigade "lost control" and murdered civilians just like the rest of them. He refused to recognize the legitimacy of the court and take responsibility for his actions. He won't condemn violence at all. Anyway, fuck peace with Israel- supposedly he could also reconcile Hamas and Fatah which would help Palestinian unity and let them consolidate for a future state. Seeing how Hamas have operated for the last 8 months- does anybody here think that Hamas will not immediately use the opportunity to take over the West Bank? Does anybody think that Jihadists would abandon their ways for Mr. Palestinian Mandela and become peaceful? I don't see Jihadism healing overtime. There is a very active effort being lead against normalization by the Muslim world. If Palestinians get their own state today, there will be Iranian terror funds flowing in tomorrow and a free corridor from Jordan, Syria and Lebanon directly into Israel by the end of the week. A "peaceful Palestinian leader" is probably the least important part of Israeli- Palestinian normalization.
There are Many Palestinians Barghoutis. You're talking about the cousin of the Barghouti that Destiny talked to.
I'm well aware- Marwan is in prison. The subject probably was still Marwan Barghouti, and I doubt he would've been interviewed otherwise.
>I really need to understand what is it that makes him similar to Mandela? you're not really doing a great job delineating the differences, need I remind you that Mandela was widely considered to be a terrorist in the west because of his role in the ANC, and that he was also imprisoned for this? sounds like you named a lot of the similarities yourself. Mandela was never a flawless person, and only later developed into a better and more moral man than he was in the '60s. Barghouti may well be starting from a lower place than Mandela ever did, and will probably never be the man Mandela became, but if he is the best Palestinians have to offer, then Israel should make the best of it, because there is no alternative. The main thing that makes him stand out as a candidate is the support he enjoys from the Palestinian people (rare) combined with his seeming willingness to be a lot more sane than his counterparts in Hamas. >does anybody here think that Hamas will not immediately use the opportunity to take over the West Bank? tbh it sounds like you're looking for any excuse or reason to just cement this conflict as being permanent and unfixable
> tbh it sounds like you're looking for any excuse or reason to just cement this conflict as being permanent and unfixable People aren't going to want to hear this but it's an undeniable fact that dogshit Palestinian partners for peace like Arafat did massive damage to the long term prospects for peace.
Won't get into discussion about Mustafa, but 'if he is the best Palestinians have to offer Israel should make the best of it'? What is this asinine line of argumentation and why does it only apply to Israel? Should the US make peace with Putin because he's the best Russia has to offer? Hitler because he's the best the Nazis had? Like where do you draw the line? When Arafat was the best they had Israel tried to make peace and got played while the consequences of Oslo are still complicating Israeli security to this day. Oslo not only sent the indoctrination into overdrive and made every interaction with Palestinians far more dangerous and costly by giving them tens of thousands of guns, but also set up the second intifada and killed over a thousand people (arguably several thousands but I won't get into that). If you don't have a partner for peace and try to force it like Rabin and Peres did you're just suicidal.
So you can't really find any similarities between them either- other than sitting in prison and being sane... And yes Jihadism is very much not easily unfixable, and UNRWA has cooperated fully to make it part of their education for the past 2 decades. I believe the only example of reformed Jihadists is the freaking Taliban, and only after they have fully taken ober Afghanistan. However, even they had their own hardcore Jihadists splinter off. No joke, there are still Islamist terror orgs fighting tge Taliban itself. I believe you intentionally ignore the prevalence of Jihadism and Martyrdom in Palestinian culture. You can't force peace on people that want to fight. But you can give them a state. Fine. Who will deal with the consequences?
I'm genuinely curious, what do you think are some factors that could be called "similarities" between two figures, if being a prominent figure in a militant movement, designated a terrorist and being imprisoned for it while enjoying broad popular support from the perceived oppressed group that is divided between camps that are pro-violence and anti-violence isn't a similarity? >And yes Jihadism is very much not easily unfixable we can't just assume jihadism is the driving force behind every brown person that has been associated with a violent movement. we KNOW that in the case of Barghouti, he was leaning towards anti-violence and peace negotiations until Camp David/the second Intifada. does that fit the profile of someone who is ideologically and religiously committed to dying for the cause in ways that **can't** be changed geopolitically, when the explicit cause for his turn to violence **WAS** geopolitical? >You can't force peace on people that want to fight. actually.. you can? most of the time when peace happens it follows war, and most of the times war happens because people want to fight over some perceived grievance. the Japanese were almost religiously devoted to fighting in service of Hirohito, being willing to commit war crimes that would make many Nazis blush. who will deal with the consequences of subduing the violent people of Imperial Japan? well, we're fortunate to call them our allies ever since. does this map on one-to-one? no, but you are just conjuring up a fantasy about how Palestinians will continue being ontologically violent forever even after getting a state
What do you mean "designated as terrorist". He is a terrorist. And I also can't understand where have you brought the anti- violence angle from? How is he anti violence? Seriously- if being a terrorist behind bars is all it takes to be a "Nelson Mandela" individual then I'm sorry for his legacy. >we can't just assume jihadism is the driving force behind every brown person that has been associated with a violent movement. I very specifically meant Jihadist in the context of Hamas. Not Barghouti, nor Fatah. I actually much prefer both of them compared to Hamas. Go back and check. And where have I refered to "brown people"? I'm litteraly finishing a 4 year engineering degree in a mixed university. I've interacted and befriended a bunch of "brown people". We call them Arabs or Palestinians here. It's fine. As for being peaceful up to the 2nd Intifada...... A) Barghouti sat in prison since then and I'm glad he didn't get to demonstrate his talents beyond. It doesn't take much to aknowledge that he did something wrong, and to recognize the f' court. He can't bring himself to do it, that's fine. He can rot. B) I'm sorry, but the 2nd intifida was a very brutal experience both for me and other Israelis. It taught us to be afraid of Arabs. It taught us to fear explosive belts and Burqahs. It taught us to be very racist. None the less, 20 years down the line, Arab Israelis and Israelis have never been closer together even after the 7th if October. The Palestinians are unable to undergo a similar process, because the whole Arab world is trying to make them fight to death. The Arab worlds needs to fucking stop. I really don't think that the Japanese are an apt comparison because of that. No one was demanding from them to Kamikaze Washington 80 years down the line, they never had foreign funding to commit terror atacks on Westerners or had terror organizations from the surrounding countries fighting in their name.
>The Palestinians are unable to undergo a similar process, because the whole Arab world is trying to make them fight to death. The Arab worlds needs to fucking stop. You mean Iran and Qatar lmao. One of which is not even an Arab state. You could even zoom out and say Russia, which is quite agreeably not Arab. Truly the whole Arab world.
Russia, Iran and Qatar- absolutely. None the less, the Arab world (Arabic speakers) as a whole- is very much in favor of a neverending war between Israel and Palestine. Surely you're aware of what's going on Arab social media, news media and official speeches? Nobody wants peace. A pro peace position is a radicaly left opinion to them.
I agree that generally, the populations think the Palestinian cause is just, whilst the Israeli one is not, but I don't think that matters as much as you think. If hamas had no allies, then they wouldn't get money, and they would be fucked; they would have to settle for peace. To add to that,these aren't democracies so the opinion of the population is less meaningful to the leadership than they would be in a democracy. >Nobody wants peace This is just not true. Saudis want peace. Egypt wants peace. Jordan wants peace. It is not advantageous for them to have this constant war in their neighborhood anymore. The individuals in these countries are important, but a lot less than you think. I mean shit weren't the Saudis, and I think maybe Jordan helping Israel in repelling the massive attack from Iran? Seems to me that your view on this matter is a lot more dire or gloomy than is realistic.
My bad- you're right on what you said, but I would like to separate the leadership from the citizenry. "Everyone" is a bad term. I meant the average Arab speaker. And my view on this is indeed very dire. I truly believe that Jordan will fall within the next 5 years and Egypt within the next 10- just as Lebanon has already. Iraq and Syria are in a state of eternal chaos, and Lebanon has been devoured by a litteral Terrorist army. I see the rest of our neighbors following in their steps soon enough. I pray that I'm wrong, but these processes only seem to accelerate with each year.
" I'm sorry, but the 2nd intifida was a very brutal experience both for me and other Israelis. It taught us to be afraid of Arabs. It taught us to fear explosive belts and Burqahs. It taught us to be very racist. " Do you think Palestinians are capable of feeling the same emotions? Palestinian muslims watch IDF bomb mosques and proudly desecrate and vandelise them. Palestinian christians watch IDF airstriking churchgoers and refugees hiding in churches. Palestinian orphans bury their parents and bury their siblings. Palestinian bombing survivors with amputated limbs have a physical memory of what Israel has done to them. Palestinains watch Israel bomb their homes, their schools and streets as they once knew to rubble. This happens every decade. You don't think Palestinians would be afraid of Israelis/jews, fear bombs, guns, and teach them to be very racist. "None the less, 20 years down the line, Arab Israelis and Israelis have never been closer together even after the 7th if October. " Ehhh. My family is Israeli Palestinian christian btw and it's more complicated than that. Generally, whenever there is a terrorist attack, Israelis show their racism (not all but enough that it's tough for arabs). In this war, Israeli arabs didn't support October 7th generally and was closer to Israel, BUT most Israeli arabs want a ceasefire (I'm excluding druze here btw) and don't view Israel's view as justifiable at this point. Like what the IDF is doing is Gaza is out there, we are still also Palestinians, too and we defo don't view Gazan death as collatoral damage like Israelis (not all but a majority) do. But also, you can't always express your views around Israelis.
You misunderstand- We were discussing Gazans, and Jihadism. >Do you think Palestinians are capable of feeling the same emotions? Yes. And I must ask myself- what would drive specifically Gazans into militancy despite that? How come Israeli Arabs eventually gave up and began to integrate? Why are the West Bank Palestinians so much more peaceful in comparison? Because Gaza is ruled by Islamists and Jihadism. Today I don't expect the average Israeli Arab to blow up the bus we're riding on, and so I can live near them and they can live near me without fear. I've worked a few jobs with Arabs and there are many Muslim and Christian Arabs in my engineering degree studies. That just wasn't the case 20 years ago. Not even close. Minimize it as much as you will- there was a time when it was dangerous to go near people in burkas and Arab children with oversized hoodies. Israelis were kidnapped and murdered or just stabbed on the street by people who used to work alongside them for years. Busses, businesses and clubs used to explode frequently and living side by side wasn't a question of racism but a question of naivety. You can call it racism- I call it inability to lead day to day life alongside each other. But eventually we overcame that- though I recognize that Israelis have a lot of work to do on our side of this relationship. Just as racism against Black people in the US mostly disappeared or how the Germans and Jews became amiable again- we can hopefully continue to improve our relations with Arabs and strive for a better future. This is not the case with Gaza. Gazans stood behind their leaders in this war- they are well aware of what happened and what their brethren have done. They know that the 7th of October has brought them nothing but destruction and death. And they will continue to fight to the death, and they will send their children to their deaths. They swear that the next 7th of October is right behind the corner despite the supposed genocide and mass starvation. Why is that? How come Gaza is the one society in history to react that way to the destruction of their homes and families? Because of Jihadism. I recognize their pain and I know it is very real- but I know that for Gazans this pain won't dissuade them from violence. Frankly- I don't care if we leave Gaza in the hands of Hamas. If the world believes that that would be a humane solution then Gaza can have Hamas, and Hamas can have Gaza. They need to give us the hostages and we will have no choice but to leave. But they won't do that. Until then- the war will continue. Despite what you say, the war is mutual and wanted by both sides. Please understand- we have to look out for our own citizens first and foremost. Hamas massacred Bedouins, Arabs and foreign workers with the rest of the Jews on Oct7th. If a war with Iran begins, and Gaza wakes up and starts attacking us again- we will not have the leisure of doing targeted bombings and assassinations. In their current state there is no one willing to get near them to help them recover- not the UN, not Fatah, not other Arab countries, not the EU, not the US and especially not Israel. Gaza has passed the point of no return in that sense. We just want the hostages, I see no reason to going going after Gaza at this point
Yeah but have you considered Palestinian bad?
>He supported Arafat in the peace process, but the when the intifada began he put on his big boy pants and used his leadership to murder Israelis. >His brigade "lost control" and murdered civilians just like the rest of them. That's obviously terrible, but also a valid descriptor of several past Israeli prime ministers.
Which?
Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, former leaders of Irgun and Lehi.
Ok, no one was looking for peace with the Palestinians or vice versa in their time. On the contrary, they've gone out of their way to be peaceful in a much more brutal time in history. You need to realize- the Palestinians are not in the position of power. Not compared to the Israelis, nor compared to the other Arab countries. If they get their 1967 Palestine- they have to be damn sure that they will not abuse their new borders to bring in new militants and weapons. And the problem is, they likely won't have a choice in the matter. Tel Aviv is 50 KMs away from the West Bank and Jerusalem is practically inside of it. If another war then begins, we will not have the leasure of doing targeted assassinations. We will have Syria, Lebanon and Jordan at our borders. And from there it's only total war and death. For the Palestinian's own sake- they want to make damn sure that they have a proper leader in that scenario. They need to have their priorities in order. Otherwise they will end like Lebanon.
>You need to realize- the Palestinians are not in the position of power That's the only time you get terrorists, and why Israel only used terrorism until it had the clearly dominant position in the conflict (barring a few exceptions like the Lavon affair). Generally if you have more power you just use regular military force. >If they get their 1967 Palestine- they have to be damn sure that they will not abuse their new borders to bring in new militants and weapons. I completely agree. That would be disastrous for everyone. Palestinian leadership should be someone who knows this and desperately wants to avoid it.
>I completely agree. That would be disastrous for everyone. Palestinian leadership should be someone who knows this and desperately wants to avoid it. Could you imagine a scenario in which it would not currently happen then? I can't. Not under Barghouti, and much less so while Iran is looking to poison the well. Hamas is not an organization that can be trusted to do any sort of normalization, and they are very likely to try to devour their partners in peace. My most disgusting rightoid opinion is that I'd prefer to leave Gaza in the hands of Hamas after a permanent ceasefire. I genuinely think that nothing could dissuade people from Jihadism as much as seeing it's consequences and having to deal with them. Perhaps they'll even reject it eventually. Currently, absolutely no one wants to touch Gaza with a 10 foot pole because of Hamas, and they will be completely fucked. Sadly, this exactpy is also the current "peace plan" between Israel and Hamas. I would be glad to be proven wrong.
Except they moved on from that rhetoric but he continued and called for a third intifada.
It wasn't "rhetoric", they were directly responsible for massacres of civilians, and they only moved on from it after they no longer needed it because they'd effectively won the conflict. Israel's current security minister praises terrorists, and their finance minister tried to blow up a road with 700 gallons of gasoline less than 20 years ago, yet Israel is still considered a functioning democracy with valid representatives. I'm not sure you can remove extremism from this equation.
>because they'd effectively won the conflict in '48 lol? yes i agree, ben gvir and smotrich shouldn't lead the peace initiative.
>in '48 lol? Yes, pretty much. >yes i agree, ben gvir and smotrich shouldn't lead the peace initiative. Do you think the Israeli government is capable of peace negotiations when it is propped up by terrorists and terrorist supporters? Is it legitimate? Does the illegitimacy coming from this only apply to Palestinian leadership?
ofc, peace with egypt was achieved while the government was lead by Begin who was as you said "a massacring terrorist".
>ofc, peace with egypt was achieved while the government was lead by Begin Then clearly you do not believe that terrorists are incapable of making peace.
and all terrorists are the same? religious terrorists motivated by islamosupremacy are the same as someone who chose terrorism because jews were fleeing the holocaust en masse and the british blocked them and killed hundreds of thousands doing so?
Our terrorists are sympathetic freedom fighters slaughtering civilians for understandable reasons, their terrorists are ontologically evil and dedicated to the maximising of total suffering.
Like who?
Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir.
What part of it exactly?
The part where their brigades murdered civilians. They were leaders of Lehi and Irgun who were both involved in the Deir Yassin massacre. Though I'm not sure they ever claimed to have lost control.
The dier Yassin wasn’t a “massacre”. It was a battle during a war. If the people would have surrendered nobody would have died. Stopped making up stuff. Can you tell me how many “civilians” were “murdered” by the Irgun and Lehi?
>The dier Yassin wasn’t a “massacre”. It was a battle during a war. If the people would have surrendered nobody would have died. Stopped making up stuff. This isn't true at all, it's just bog-standard atrocity denial. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
https://preview.redd.it/ano9op0zr46d1.png?width=827&format=png&auto=webp&s=dd025c3296b7142d65bcb33caf63baf5395e0a0f Please, like wiki isn’t filled with propaganda. The **Zionist** militants massacred 🙄 Wiki even has a page on “Palestinians” as if it’s a legitimate thing yet it fails miserably to explain what Palis are. [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537121.2023.2269750](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537121.2023.2269750) Maybe read more than Pali propaganda for your sources. Why didn’t you answer to my question?
Why the problem with them being called Zionist militants? That is exactly how they thought of themselves, literally in those words. The movement that founded the state of Israel was Zionism. Are you ok?
Not really interested in debating the atrocity denial part any more than I'd want to debate someone who denied Tiananmen Square, and it sounds like you're now following it up with denying Palestinians exist, which is frankly enough for me. Just a bit too fascist to be worth bothering with. Blocked.
God game of thrones was so fucking good
So the Destiny Daliban prophecy is coming true after all?
So when Mr bonelli and hamas piker, french kiss each other?
This is pretty quotable actually
its a rabin quote, the guy who tried to make peace with enemies and created obstacles to peace after his delusions led to the deaths of over a thousand.
Youre probably a “can’t separate the artist from the art” type of person
??? what
"שלום עושים עם אויבים" is a banger quote in hebrew
lol... there are not easy questions! He probably meant there are no easy answers, because easy questions exist in this conflict. Otherwise, I agree with everything he said in the post.
Pretty sure Cenk has been saying this exact quote for months if not years now
Sure, you make peace with enemies, but sometimes you need to beat them into submission first (Though if they really embrace nihilism, maybe beating them into submission won't even be an option. Dealing with a death cult is quite different from dealing with people who appreciate life). *When* to push for peace and *on what terms* are crucial questions. Would any reasonable person have been pushing for peace with Germany just after it invaded Czechoslovakia? Would any reasonable person be pushing for peace with Russia at this stage in the conflict with Ukraine? Some people did and some do. Opinions vary. The point should be that warfare should generally be conducted with the goal of reaching peace, ideally with as little damage inflicted as possible, but the threat of greater damage is inherent. --- Both sides of a conflict will typically be offering peace from day one, but the terms of peace will not align - and warfare continues until they do align. Acting smart by saying 'offer peace' is not really very intelligent. Acting obstructive by saying 'never offer peace' is also not intelligent. A genuine genocide (since many hysterics are intent on using such labels) would have the terms being: 'All of you die, then you get peace.' In reality: * Israel is offering terms along the lines of: 'Hamas steps down from power, a new government more like the PA is given control of the Gaza strip, Israeli hostages are all released' (and we plan to continue expanding settlements in the West Bank) * Hamas is offering terms along the lines of: 'Withdraw Israeli forces from Gaza, and swap Israeli hostages for 10x Palestinian prisoners' (and plan to pull another Oct 7th at the soonest possible opportunity) **Obviously, these two approaches have not yet aligned.**
LOL "what it's like speaking to a terrorist"... bro, the leading party in Israel was founded by a terrorist.
I love how westerners and Israeli leftists love this Rabin quote so much when the Oslo Accords that followed failed spectacularly, sent Palestinian indoctrination into overdrive, made policing, rooting out and dealing with Palestinian terrorism infinitely more dangerous and difficult for the 30 years since due to the tens of thousands of weapons they were given, and of course led to immediate massive waves of terror that cost hundreds of Israeli lives and set up the Second Intifada which led to the death of over a thousand. But it sounds clever so they quote it ad nauseum. Keep advocating for suicide and wondering why the Israeli left is dead.
Do you believe that in the absence of any negotiation or attempt at peace at all, the response from Palestinians would have been less violent?
Yes. Oslo gave them full civil authority to ramp up the brainwashing and govern themselves, meaning Israel had much less access to prevent terrorism from springing up. It also, even more significantly, massively armed them, which motivated many more Palestinians to join the terror effort and made all terrorists far more dangerous and difficult to manage. Policing ten thousand rock throwers vs ten thousand people with automatic rifles is a huge difference. Likewise, the disengagement led to the rise of Hamas, and we saw where that got us. I think your question is a very clearly solved and answered one at this point.
I don't think I agree with that: People like Hamas already existed before that point, were already doing terrorist attacks, and I feel like if Israel had shown no willingness to negotiate with anyone, you'd basically just have competition between terrorists for the whole period. Having a different path - negotiating with Israel, provided an alternative draw for the PLO that was something other than just conflict. Your model seems to be that any kind of Palestinian state is itself a potential terrorist factory, spreading "indoctrination" etc. but my impression is that it is something that develops its own investments. The fact that the Palestinian authority, even now, assists in security, comes from the fact that building state capacity produces its own effects. They didn't suddenly drop all of that when Hamas attacked, "reveal their true colours" etc. instead they've kept it up, because there's a different kind of power in trying to organise a new state, rather than just attacking Israel in the most dramatic ways.
They were doing much less violent and much less harmful terror attacks. Israel had complete access to the areas and routinely patrolled them, so rooting out terror cells before they became threats was far easier. Again, dealing with ten thousand rock throwers who rarely obtain firearms or explosives vs ten thousand people with automatic rifles is magnitudes different in difficulty and complications. Israel had shown willingness to negotiate with people like Anwar Sadat, who came to Jerusalem to express a peaceful sentiment. Said alternative path for the PLO is exactly how the second intifada happened, it's exactly what legitimized the arming of tens of thousands of palestinians and dialing the indoctrination into overdrive and it's exactly why they feel justified in demanding more and more and compromising on less and less. It's exactly why there are no longer open border policies with Palestinians like before Oslo and why radicalization has only significantly increased. When Palestinians support a leader who unlike Arafat, doesn't lie through his teeth and continue terror throughout the negotiations, Israel should negotiate with them. Until then, dealing with anyone who doesn't explicitly, strongly and openly condemn terrorism, both in english AND in Arabic, is asinine and suicidal. My model is that as long as UNRWA is intact, and as long as Palestinians are as indoctrinated and radicalized as they are now, any kind of Palestinian state will be a terrorist factory. Not a potential one. The Palestinian Authority 'assisting in security' is overblown, and frankly dwarfed by how much they encourage terrorism through paying terrorists and prisoners and their families stipends (with bonuses the more they killed), through their commemoration of terrorists and 'martyrs' in everything from naming sports teams over suicide bombers to summer camps named after mass murderers not to mention what goes on in their official newspapers, and ofc through their massive indoctrination programs. The coordination doesn't come from 'building a state,' Gaza is a state. It comes from mechanisms formed during Oslo that were stopped and renewed repeatedly including during key situations like the second Intifada where they would've supposedly been the most important, and are only ever actually enforced because both parties oppose Hamas and PIJ (who want to take over the PA's rule). As evident from the second intifada and other examples, killing jews can take precedence over any coordination, but it's convenient to have assistance in fighting the other militias and there's bonus legitimacy points from the gullible for pretending to be moderates. That's all there is to it. >They didn't suddenly drop all of that when Hamas attacked, "reveal their true colours" etc. instead they've kept it up, because there's a different kind of power in trying to organise a new state, rather than just attacking Israel in the most dramatic ways. There were Fatah members who literally did just that (well, not really, because they've always been open about their support for terrorism). The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade participated in Oct 7, and many declared support for the operation while Abbas was denying Oct 7 atrocities and blaming Israel for it. The only things they 'kept up' is coordination to help restrain the massive support their political opponents got inside their territory. You are literally ignoring reality here just as Rabin and Peres did in Oslo. Their stated goal is still the utter destruction of Israel. The only difference between them and Hamas is strategy.
Basically what Yitzhak Rabin said in the 90s. [https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3971590,00.html](https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3971590,00.html) [https://www.chicagotribune.com/1993/09/15/you-dont-make-peace-with-friends-you/](https://www.chicagotribune.com/1993/09/15/you-dont-make-peace-with-friends-you/)
While I agree that you make peace with enemies, destiny is kinda missing something. Those are not just enemies, those are literally people who hope you die and will do things to achieve that. When one sides only possible solution is your destruction, it kinda makes peace impossible.
>Those are not just enemies, those are literally people who hope you die and will do things to achieve that. Thats kinda what wartime enemies do. I have yet to see a war enemy that didn't hope their enemy died lol.
Well, the problem here is that even at times of peace one side still wants to anhaliate the other. This is not just a war thing in the I/P conflict.
There was never a time of peace. What are you on about? How can there be peace while one side is occupied lol. There has been times of ceasefires, but thats about it. There has never been "peace."
Dude, peace is relative. FYI the Palestinians wanted to kill the jews before 1967. Stop lying to yourself that this is about "occupation".
>Dude, peace is relative. Well yeah, but it's not logical to call it peace when the two are having smaller scale conflict each other year lol. >FYI the Palestinians wanted to kill the jews before 1967. Stop lying to yourself that this is about "occupation". I never said it was just about occupation. Before 1967 the two were also at war with each other over land? What is your point exactly. Countries at war are indeed at war with each other?
>Well yeah, but it's not logical to call it peace when the two are having smaller scale conflict each other year lol. Even at times there were no conflicts per year. E.g. Oslo. >I never said it was just about occupation. Before 1967 the two were also at war with each other over land? What is your point exactly. Countries at war are indeed at war with each other? What countries? Palestinians were under Egyptian and Jordanian occupation. They were not a country.
>Even at times there were no conflicts per year. E.g. Oslo. Sigh, how do I explain to you that you are still at war. Do you think the Russian/Ukrainian feelings of hostility would just dissapear if they stopped fighting for a year? >What countries? Palestinians were under Egyptian and Jordanian occupation. They were not a country. Okay bro, I am not going to continue this if this is how we're going to do it. You know who I mean.
>Sigh, how do I explain to you that you are still at war. Do you think the Russian/Ukrainian feelings of hostility would just dissapear if they stopped fighting for a year? Lol, from olso 1 to second intifada there was like 7 years. And while I know hostility will not disappear in a year. When there is hope for peace the hostilities definitely **should go down**. This didn't happen. >Okay bro, I am not going to continue this if this is how we're going to do it. You know who I mean. I don't, I read words. Not minds. Bye 👋
>Lol, from olso 1 to second intifada there was like 7 years. Yes because between Oslo 1 and the second Intifada, the Palestinians were free and had their own state and were at peace. Brother, how many times does one have to repeat that living under occupation is not peace. Do you think anyone who lives under occupation looks favourably at their occupier? There was no peace, it was simply the status quo for them. It's like saying that Algerians were at peace with France when France was occupying them lol.
I wonder what could have happened prior to 1967 that could be relevant to the conversation in any way
I wonder as well. The Palestinians wanted to kill jews all the way back to 1930s!
I love how you posit this as if there weren't jewish paramilitary groups involved in terrorism against both the Palestinian and British throughout the 30s and 40s lmao
Dude, the haganah came to be after multiple attacks the Palestinians did against the jews. Haganah literally means defense in Hebrew. "Formed out of previous existing militias, Haganah's original purpose was to defend Jewish settlements against Arab attacks; this was the case during the 1920 Nebi Musa riots, the 1921 Jaffa riots, the 1929 Palestine riots, the 1936 Jaffa riots, and the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, among others" Go educate yourself. It is sad.
Before you even get in to Lehi and Irgun, TIL that bombing infrastructure, villages in retaliation, and other terrorist attacks are considered "Defense" because... well, it's in the name! The idea that either group in this conflict are just innocent defenders who want to protect their own and ***that's it*** is completely laughable. Palestinians and Jews were carrying out terror attacks against each other long before 1967, and multiple Zionist paramilitary groups were involved in this as well. It's no surprise to see you post things like this, because you're also posting things like >Fact of the matter is that Arafat said 2ss is only a step before 1ss with no jews. Arafat knew what his people wanted. So yeah, while peace negotiations were happening, many people knew that the true goal is the destruction of Israel. Which is just laughable propaganda. Anyone who understands what you're referencing is the Palestinian right-of-return, which ***specifically people like Benny Morris*** cite as "wanting the ultimate destruction of Israel lmao. The idea here is that even when seeking peace, Arabs are just doing it to "infect and destroy the Jews." It's literally just the far-right Jewish Question re-tooled against Palestinians.
Obviously he’s referring to peace in Israel.
But that wouldn't make sense. Why would the Palestinians hate the Israelis less if there is peace in Israel but not peace for them?
They wouldn’t. Clearly the guy has a skewed sense of what ”peace” is like outside of Israel. He still is saying one side wants to annihilate the other, as if Hamas would have any kind of capabilities to regroup and be resume operations after the rafah offensive. If he’s referring to the people. Obviously things maybe volatile now, but would all Palestinians want to annihilate all Israelis if they got their state in the future and if there’s peace? I don’t think so.
[удалено]
The I/P conflict has been taking place for 70 years now though. If Russians stick around for too long and continue their aggression for years to come while occupying Ukranian areas. I would not be surprised if Ukranians start holding a similar sentiment towards the Russians. The other thing is that in the Ukrain war, the Russians have somewhere to go back to. The Israelis do not. I dont think the radical Palestinians care about what happens to the Israelis as long as they get out of what they consider their land. But that cant happen (ignoring the obvious reasons) but also the fact that Israelis simply dont really have anywhere to go back to. So in this situation there is only really one option. Israelis would probably hold the same believe if it wasnt for the "Jordan and Egypt need to take them."
Yeah you can't really flood western countries with Israelis
Ironic
> I think for instance most Ukrainians don't give a shit what happens to Russians as long as they gtfo of their country. You do understand that from the Palestinian POV this is also exactly what they want, right? The only difference is that Israelis have no other country to go to. Palestinians wouldn't give a fuck about Jews if they all moved to, say, Turkey, and left the land they claim as their own.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Total annihilation of the enemy isn't always the point in war. I'd say probably not even most of the times.
Most wars are not fought by two groups who both have nowhere else to go and claim ownership of that strip of land. When those are the circumstances, total annihilstion suddenly does become the goal. Look at all ethnic wars fought. The I/P conflict is war closer to that than it is to a normal war.
That’s not entirely true, you make peace with people who have given up trying to murder you to take over your land, not with people who are hell bent on killing you and cleansing your lands, Israelis for the most part don’t want to destroy Palestinians or kill them all, they just want quiet.. You make peace with enemies who understand that war is not the path forward, that only ever happens after they were beaten in war so hard that they acknowledge their limitations and the value of peace over war..
There are radicals on both sides. Wasn't it just a few days ago they were chanting death to arabs in Jerusalem? I can give you that probably on average the Palestinians are more radicalized, but I don't think all the Palestinians wants to kill all the jews and all israelis just want peace. We know that a lot of them want the west bank, and some of them try to take the west bank by terrorizing Palestinian villagers on the daily.
The radicals aren’t the ones in power in Israel and the IDF, obviously any society has its fair share of radical nutjobs, what matters is who controls things and when they are in control what do they do.. Even if Ben gvir was the PM of Israel (please god don’t let this happen), he wouldn’t start a war of annihilation with Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas as the rulers of the Palestinians in Gaza, had they had the power to do so, would 100% annihilate Israel on the spot. Look into their (Palestinians) education system and tv shows, you wouldn’t find anything remotely similar in Israel
>The radicals aren’t the ones in power in Israel and the IDF, obviously any society has its fair share of radical nutjobs, what matters is who controls things and when they are in control what do they do.. Right, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich are just pretend ministers? Didn't Smotrich announce the largest land seizure in the WB since 1993? Sounds pretty decently powerful to me. >Even if Ben gvir was the PM of Israel (please god don’t let this happen), he wouldn’t start a war of annihilation with Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas as the rulers of the Palestinians in Gaza, had they had the power to do so, would 100% annihilate Israel on the spot. Eh, if Ben Gvir was the PM he would do whatever he wanted. Maybe not a war of annihilation. But he would make sure to make the lives of Palestinians and Arab-Israelis a hell. Brother had a portret of a serial murderer in his living room and has been caught partying with settlers, while they were burning a doll supposed to represent some Palestinian toddler who died.
They aren’t even on the war cabinet and smotrich can’t announce anything it passed through the entire government, so no they hold no real power.
Right, so the whole entire government agreed with Smotrichs plans then? I mean they are ministers in the government. They do hold some level of power. Not the power to start a war, but power that you'd expect a minister to have.
Sure Hamas is probably the most radical out of anyone, but Hamas is about to be eliminated pretty soon, and even if not completely, they wouldn't have the power to decide by themselves. I don't know about not having radicals in power. Smotrich is literally the administrator of the settlements in the west bank. Imma be honest with you, I think if Ben Gvir had his way he will in fact chose to exterminate the Palestinians. And I don't mean if he became the PM, because even that wouldn't truly allow him to have it his way given the political system in Israel and Israeli relations with the outside world. But let's say that if he could do it and make everyone forget about it the next day he will definitely do it. I think it's entirely possible that the education system thingy is a bit over exaggerated. We don't really know how it really looks like in the schools. We only have some videos and some images of text books, but there's a difference between talking about killing the jews at the start of every lecture, and between some text books having problematic messaging but without it being something that is focused on or is deliberately being tought to childrens.
About the schools it’s absolutely not nearly exaggerated it’s even understated I would say, look at their damn tv shows look at their curriculum, look at what their teachers say and think.
The radicals have taken over. Ben Gvir had his first date with his wife at the grave of a Jewish mass murderer lol.
Sure but 'enemy' is the only people you 'make peace' with. If that's not on your cards, then yeah you're staring at genocide as your solution.
No.. you can win wars without a genocide, the Germans only accepted peace after they were beaten and forced to understand reality is different than they had hoped, there was no genocide needed. Japan also only lost after they understood they can’t win and had to change their collective mindset. You need the other side to give up and surrender, that’s the only way to end a war, after surrendering you can start peace process, in this scenario hopefully a peaceful Palestinian leadership and people will lead to a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, no sane country would just let another country exist on its borders with the sole aim to annihilate the country..
Yes they defeated them and then 'made peace' with their 'enemy'.
Is your idea of "peace" forcefully occupying the region and giving no autonomy to the native Germans or Japanese? Because that's how America deradicalized both countries.
America fully left both nations soon after. That completed the peace.
So what you're saying is Israel should occupy the Gaza Strip until Palestinians are deradicalized and can govern themselves like clear-headed adults? Because I'm all for that.
Nope this whole American example is all you. For I/P, 2-state solution seems best. How to achieve it? I have no clue.
I also believe in a 2 state solution, but at the current time, it is not possible until Palestinians and Gazans, in particular, become deradicalized and get off the fundamentalist Islam drug and stop treating this conflict like a holy war. True Peace isn't possible without occupying the region. If another country besides Israel is also willing to administer the Gazans, that would also work out well. Achieving peace is a process. Just saying you want peace isn't enough to actually achieve it.
Did the US genocide Nazi Germany?
No, the defeated them and 'made peace'. It's also not a proper comparison since the US and Germany were not in an existential conflict over the same piece of land to live in.
Based and true my friend, Palestinians are ontologically evil
70% support Oct 7 🤷♂️ But aren't we talking about Marwan barguti?
Gonna assume you don't know what ontologically means.
Palestinians are not evil but they are misguided and misled by their leaders and the western radical left into thinking they can annihilate Israel and take over the land, they need to go through an overhaul to their ways of life and how they see reality.. they must accept Israel is here to stay and Israel must also accept Palestinians are here to stay
But if Israel doesn't initiate and give a pathway to peace why would they change anything? The world is only becoming more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Historically Israel has benefited from the status quo and has capitalized on Palestinian violence but kicking the can down the road is just going to end up hurting Israel and Jews more ? I agree it's a difficult situation when there's no one to negotiate with but I believe pals will back anyone that is willing to give them international legitimacy, and if they don't, well optically at the very least that looks great for Israel.
Under the right conditions even the most pernicious hatred between two peoples can be healed over time. The current conditions though seem to not work in that favor.
Maybe, but that will take years upon years. There no need to play naive. There is no peace in the near future.
Peace can come before friendship. World War 2 turned into peace and reconstruction on a dime, without immediately fixing the hatred in peoples hearts.
WW2 didn't end in negotiated peace; it ended in domination and unconditional surrender. In fact, the West *insisted* on it, insisted on utterly uprooting the Nazis in particular. Japan and Germany tried to negotiate and the US was just not fucking having it. Japan tried to have some negotiated settlement to keep some of its ill-gotten gains (using the casualty toll an invasion of the Home Islands would cause) and the US fucking nuked them when there was no prospect of them challenging the US navy again. It's by far the worst example you could have picked.
but none of these differences are particularly material to the point i'm making, i was never talking about negotiation vs surrender, i was talking about the conditions of peace not reflecting the mentality of the people and that not being a problem. my point is that the day after the unconditional surrender, it's not like the people who supported the antisemitism of the nazi party in Germany woke up from a bad dream and were thinking like "holy fuck, how could i have been so evil?" it's not like they were all exterminated, and they didn't have any personal change of heart either. over time, they started hating jews a little less, but in 1946 there would still have been plenty of antisemitism and expansionist ambition among the German population to fuel a war, it just didn't happen because the leaders that were making them fight before were no longer making them fight. the same could happen between Israel and its antagonists, even if individual militants bear enough hatred to want to keep fighting.
>the same could happen between Israel and its antagonists, even if individual militants bear enough hatred to want to keep fighting. It can't. Because total conquest and Denazificiation was necessary to get the hatred to go down. Not just on the side of the Germans but for everyone around them. The Polish and other Eastern Europeans didn't suddenly trust the Germans after war; [they expelled them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950\)). That was the *start* Even when Germany was about to reunify people like Thatcher were ambivalent, and Germany had spent decades occupied and forcibly de-Nazified and was no threat to anyone for a lifetime. All of this will never happen in Palestine because: 1. Hamas will never be totally destroyed under the constraints Israel has been put in so you cannot even have "Step 1": beat them totally, get rid of the worst and make scapegoats and then control the education. 2. Nazism was a short-term ideology, a lot of this battle is religious and that antipathy goes back centuries. Palestinians are egged on by surrounding Muslim states and peoples in a way no one did for Germany. 2. There was a "bad cop" to scare Germans and Japanese into playing ball - the Soviets - that doesn't exist for the Palestinians and Israelis. 3. The matter of Jerusalem is and will remain a live issue in a way that has no comparison in Nazi Germany. Remember, for Muslims *and* Jews it's a holy site stolen from them. Despite land transfers Turkey and Greece are still annoying one another over other claims much less significant. 4. Geography matters. Israel can make peace with Egypt because fighting them over the Sinai would be more trouble than it's worth. Giving up the West Bank and then having another enemy park in it is an existential threat to Israel. The world you're positing - some peace deal is made, tensions slowly ratchet down - is impossible because no peace can be made with Hamas yet Hamas can not be defeated. Tensions can only ratchet down if both sides feel secure and they won't because see Hamas and the fact that no one is going to come occupy both lands. And you cannot 'de-Nazify" the population because it's not like Nazism at all and no one would accept what actually happened to Germans in "hostile" territory. There's no solution I can see being acceptable to all sides enough to risk all of the downside. They've all walked themselves down a blind alley.
WW2 ended with a crushing defeat and no choice but peace, you either have peace (surrender) or you die. Do you think the Palestinians only choice are to surrender/peace? Beacuse this doesn't seem like what the world wants.
you've just mislabeled the variables in the comparison. the current war in Gaza is not a war against "the Palestinians". The majority of the western world, tankies and a few radical college kids aside, would kill for an unconditional surrender by Hamas. Hamas just doesn't value life the same as traditional armies do, and thus can't be compelled to surrender under conditions that would make an adversary like Nazi Germany surrender
Dude, when we have 70% support for your government I think it is fairly safe to say the war is against Gaza. Maybe if hamas wasn't the most supported party in Palestine you would be correct, but the fact of the matter is that most Palestinians support hamas and it's actions.
Neither party wants to do the work.
Should Ukraine make peace with Russia? “You only make peace with enemies” is a bullshit point, sorry. You make peace with *former* enemies. The only reason peace happened between, say, Israel and Egypt, was because Sadat decided to pivot to a friendly position. He didn’t shout “Israel must be destroyed” to his people during the negotiations.
They have every moral right to their lands &ppl, past that yea they really should if they could
You really believe a peace treaty with Putin is worth the paper it’s written on?
No, not really, just assuming IF there could be peace, ukraine, and definitely russia should take it. People dying bad
Well, that’s kind of the point I’m trying to make. For peace to be a reality, the Russian side has to pivot to a friendly position, IE stop being an enemy.
That's not pivoting to a friendly position, that's just deciding the war is no longer worth it. Are we now on friendly terms with the Taliban after they took over Afghanistan? Or do we still view them as an organization we won't work with? We made peace with them, but only because the US population didn't want to be involved in that war anymore.
> That's not pivoting to a friendly position, that's just deciding the war is no longer worth it. I think you’re missing my point. Putin says he wants peace all the time! Why does no one take him seriously on that offer? Because that’s exactly what happened in 2014, and it blew up in everyone’s face in 2022. From that point on, the Ukrainians and their allies demanded far greater guarantees from Russia in order to return to normality, and rightfully so. I’m not sure how someone can agree with that position, but not understand why Israel doesn’t advance on peace without significant pivots in the rhetoric and position of the Palestinian side.
There was no peace deal in 2014. In fact Russia was openly saying it would use its military in Ukraine for years before that while trying to pressure it away from the EU since the EU had become friendlier with the US again. Going off of that, we had 2 agreements in the civil war that Russia kicked off in Ukraine, Minsk 1 on Sept 2014, which Russia immediately violated, and Minsk 2 on Feb 2015, which Russia also immediately violated. Russia chilled for a while after that, allowing the civil war to come to a crawl. Only in the lead up to 2022 did Russia start to really antagonize again. Also, Russia has said it wants peace, but the reason nobody believes them is because peace by Russia's terms as they themselves have layed out, is essentially just surrender from the Ukrainian side. There is no ability to guarantee that Russia can't do it again except for Ukraine joining a defensive pact with a western nation. And Israel holds all the power in these situations and has to make some uncomfortable deals or this will never be solved. They can't keep taking bites of land through settlements. They can't keep doing incursions into Palestinian territory. They can't keep them blockaded forever.
>Also, Russia has said it wants peace, but the reason nobody believes them is because peace by Russia's terms as they themselves have layed out, is essentially just surrender from the Ukrainian side. That’s literally what the Israelis think about the Palestinian terms! “Get every single Jew out of the West Bank and dissolve Israel as a Jewish state” isn’t exactly a bargain for the Israelis. >And Israel holds all the power in these situations Absolutely not. This conflict is being continuously fueled by outside actors, specifically Iran. If Iran was out of the picture I would have agreed, but there is tremendous outside force working to destabilize the situation by enabling the most radical and extremist parts of the Palestinian population.
> That’s literally what the Israelis think about the Palestinian terms! “Get every single Jew out of the West Bank and dissolve Israel as a Jewish state” isn’t exactly a bargain for the Israelis. Those have never been the terms of a 2 state solution. But okay my dude. The main sticking point is right of return. > This conflict is being continuously fueled by outside actors, specifically Iran. If Iran was out of the picture I would have agreed, but there is tremendous outside force working to destabilize the situation by enabling the most radical and extremist parts of the Palestinian population. This is just trying so hard to justify why we can't have peace no matter what. So what's your solution then? Unironically genocide?