My issue with people like Jake is that their “opinion” is simply illogical. The only possible conclusion any sane person can take using their logic is that Israel must cleanse Gaza entirely.
A sane reply would be “this is an atrocitiy and Hamas must be taken down but all aide to Israel must stop until they oblige to a peace treaty with the PLO and a full boycott should happen if they refuse”.
An unsane reply is “well murdering a 1000 teenagers in a rave is a natural consquence of your actions so you must lift the lockdown on Gaza and allow those who just justifiably slaughtered you to enter freely”.
I hate genocide so I kinda root for people like that to lose.
If youre coming at yuv you’re a fucking dumbass. The guy gives smart nuanced takes and admits his potential bias. I dont know where to stand on any of this stuff but im always more informed after reading a yuv post than I was before it.
I hope this post is able to cure one single liberal of brain rot itt. Ethnic cleansing is the only logical consequence of acknowledging that Israel is to blame for its occupation of Gaza. Well done.
So, are you proposing that anyone who disagrees with Yuv is a dumbass? Or that its impossible to be as well informed as him on this subject? Or what the fuck does this actually mean?
Let’s give you another shot at it. You were just appointed PM of Israel. What would your actions be in regards to Gaza?
Your only logical escapre route is if you think Israel is a colonial entity in its entirity and therefore has no right to exist. Otherwise you’re in a loophole.
I apologize in advance for quoting from a different forum. But someone just posted how Israel has cut off electricity to Gaza to hide what they are about to do there.
Now this is a fair analysis of a situation in a vacuum. But anyone who has a lot invested here knows that Bibi is doing the exact opposite. He must broadcast as loud as he possibly can how hard he’s striking Gaza to save his government. They are cutting off the electricity as a form of easily marketable punishment.
Sometimes stuff can be bad but understanding the reasonings gives you a better view of a conflict that isn’t as simple as you might think. Even if your basic view is correct (occupation is evil).
I’m not responsible for this, whether or not I have a solution for Israel that is in the bounds of the ethno-nationalist political framework
Its established for itself is irrelevant to whether it is to blame and solely to blame for the Palestinian apartheid. It is, and forcing me to prove I have a solution for them in order to justify that is a logical fallacy and a really old rhetorical trick.
Regardless, the solution probably lies first in showing they won’t respond to this with genocidal mania (impossible for Israel especially when “reasonable moderates” like Yuv enable it). Then a consistent deescalation and inversely proportionate response to any Palestinian aggression and a proactive push for the 1967 borders and a concrete compensation commitment is probably the only feasible (and morally justifiable) approach.
I mean there’s a lot of mambo jambo in the first paragraph, but you lost the plot in 67 being a morally justifiable approach. This just shows how little you know about it if you think I’m a reasonable moderate.
Any palestinian would laugh at you for saying 1967 is a morally justifiable solution and they’ll be damn right. The only morally justifiable solution is a one state solution and you’ve just shown how little you understand about it. At best a two state solution on the 67 line is a diplomatic solution to a moral problem.
It’s really not though, he’s just another zionist fuckwit talking in logical pretzels about how Israel’s only choice is genocide (which he totally disagrees with of course). Now watch him explain why every Israeli military action is being totally misunderstood actually.
Lol, I’m miles to the left of your two state solution. Just imagine being so arrogant that you don’t want to learn from someone who’s not only an actual expert on a matter, but far to the left of you (which is something you seem to appreciate for some reason)
“Just draw arbitrary lines within brown people land and this will be the solution to all the problem” said the white person on the internet. How did that solution worked out for you in the past? Maybe it’s time for white westerns to stop talking and listen more?
I don’t think there is any sort of reasonable solution when it sure looks like there are so many people who think the other side shouldn’t exist but I ain’t there, I don’t care, you all figure it out.
A retaliatory attack against those responsible for this atrocity is morally justifiable as long as it’s legal and proportional, but I hope there is some shred of wisdom that’s going to enter into this process after the initial response culminates; once Hamas is gone or mostly gone, what’s next? I can’t imagine it’s in Israel’s long term interest, in terms of safety to the average Israeli citizen, to have the army in Gaza in perpetuity.
No he’s saying if you make certain assumptions (Israel is a totally illegitimate state that shouldnt exist, there are no civilians in this only valid targets etc) then it becomes the existential battle that the hard right zionists are always claiming it is. And if you’re in a truly existential battle doing awful things to survive is generally going to be the response.
At least thats my understanding i could be misconstruing his posts too.
Right, going back to the mumbo jumbo, acknowledging the moral and historical reality very much isn’t contingent on actually solving the issue. But the reality is that the political landscape in Palestine likely shifts if they don’t have a boot on their neck everyday.
The only moral solution is one state with equal rights. No one owns this land more than another. There is no Palestinian land and Israeli land and no one who lives here actually thinks that.
And while settlers are scum of the earth, I don’t think vacating 600k people from their homes is moral either. Just as it never was for anyone else. Which puts me to the extreme of the “moderates” in Israel.
But again, you have no interest in learning or thinking about this. I get it, I’d be the same if I were you.
Yuv are you in favor of a military campaign to “dismantle Hamas” and what does that entail? Is that the entire political/services apparatus of Hamas or just its militant wing? Just confused about the lefty stuff since you seemed to advocate this earlier.
Yep, it’s extremely obvious to anyone who is thinking about it.
Team A - Israel is a colonial state that shouldn’t exist.
Team B - We are Israel. We want to exist. We must fight and eliminate those who say we shouldn’t exist otherwise we’ll cease to exist.
So this is dumb. It actively justifies the genocide of Palestinians so that’s WRONG. Bad Jake. No. But at least it’s somewhat logically sound.
Second attempt
Team A - Israel is at fault for the occupation (TRUE) therefore we must support a group that has actively said for years they will murder every Israeli until the land is cleanse and just succesfully did so the first time they were not stopped.
Team B - We are Israel. We don’t want that group to slaughter us, therefore we now have justification to bomb the fuck out of 2 million civilians.
Bad. No Jake. Log off. This doesn’t even make sense. Why would you want that?
Team A - Israel is at fault for the occupation. Hamas, as shown numerous times since actively crashing the Oslo Accords along with Israel’s right wing is holding millions hostage and needs to be stopped. Israel occupation needs to be stopped by any economical and diplomatic measure possible like in South Africa.
Team B - We are Israel. We suck. We lost our American funding. We surrender and will sit with the PLO for peace talks without any ridiculous demands.