Israel-Palestine

posted by gut

I don't think that is 100% accurate.  But knowing that Hamas/Palestine don't want peace, wouldn't Israel be stupid to agree to the 2-state solution?

Why would Israel agree to any "peace" they can be 100% certain Hamas and Palestine won't abide by?

If you want to point a finger, point it at the side that's actually aiding and abetting TERRORISTS.

Also, to say "Israel does not want peace" is a bullshit and ignorant left wing talking point.  Why wouldn't they want peace, if it was a real offer?  They have their homes, and I'm sure would be more than happy to keep their homes and live in safety.  That's not acceptable to Palestine and Hamas.  So what you're claiming "Israel doesn't want" isn't actually an offer on the table for them to reject, anyway.

If you’re opposed by a military funded and supplied by the world’s sole superpower, fielding a traditional military opposition isn’t much of an option.  

I don’t say this about Israeli citizens on an individual basis, but I agree that Israel the country doesn’t want peace.  Fighting Hamas, Hezbollah, Syrians, Egyptians, and maybe someday Iranians is what gives the country its cause and reason for being.  

posted by jmog

Sorry ptown, but trying to equate both sides here is a non-starter. Israel isn’t 100% innocent but it is like 90/10 on who’s at fault here. 

And Israel has offered a 2 state solution a number of times which has been rejected by Palestine every time.

So after being told no many times do you fault Israel for finally also saying no?

Almost 40k dead civilians say otherwise. Also, the fact Israel is also carving up the west Bank with settlements also says they do not want peace or a state for Palestine.

Yes, Israel has offered the 2 state solution before, but since Bibi took over a few years ago, him and his government have said for years they reject a Palestinian state. 

posted by gut

I don't think that is 100% accurate.  But knowing that Hamas/Palestine don't want peace, wouldn't Israel be stupid to agree to the 2-state solution?

Why would Israel agree to any "peace" they can be 100% certain Hamas and Palestine won't abide by?

If you want to point a finger, point it at the side that's actually aiding and abetting TERRORISTS.

Also, to say "Israel does not want peace" is a bullshit and ignorant left wing talking point.  Why wouldn't they want peace, if it was a real offer?  They have their homes, and I'm sure would be more than happy to keep their homes and live in safety.  That's not acceptable to Palestine and Hamas.  So what you're claiming "Israel doesn't want" isn't actually an offer on the table for them to reject, anyway.

The current Israeli government does not want an actual Palestinian state and they have said this for years. Their actions with settlements in the West Bank are an example. It is almost impossible now to have a Palestinian state in the West Bank with all of carve outs with settlements. 

You are also thinking about this the wrong way. In today's current environment, civilian deaths do way more harm than good. It only leads to more terrorists and the other side not wanting to agree to anything you say or do. That is the lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel can kill and try and destroy Hamas, but it is only creating more fighters later. 

The only real solution is a single state of both Israel and Palestine. 

I wish y'all would have been this vehement the day Israel was attacked last year.

I think Israel has the right to exist. I think Palestine has the right to exist. 

IMO let Israel/Palestine do what they do. Without our involvement. It's a fools errand to pretend one side is more to blame than the other. Nobody has to admit it to know that that's true.

I'm also sick of the Ukraine shit!

Edit to add:

If Dems are truly up in arms about Israel, where is the outrage for Kamala's backdoor threat to Iran during her speech at the convention? Not enough war for y'all?

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Israel doesn't need the US to survive or thrive.  They did just fine without our weapons in 47, 67, and 73. 

That is false. Taking just 1973 as an example, read about Operation Nickel Grass.  Israel was out of ammo and ready to capitulate to the Arabs.  The US sent 150 fighter aircraft and hundreds of plane loads of military equipment, flown by US personnel at great risk and literally handed over to the Israelis thereby saving their nation from imminent defeat (likely only days away).  The resulting OPEC embargo led to our oil/gas crisis.

Israel would most certainly not exist without American subsistence.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Ok. I counter force failed in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel is failing to take any lessons from those wars.

Unconditional surrender and complete victory has never been a set goal in any of these wars you mention.  I gave you the example of Imperial Japan.  Quite the fitting example.  Suicidal die hard committed.  The emperor looked upon as godlike.  A different time when wars were won and bought peace for a longer season. 

posted by majorspark

Unconditional surrender and complete victory has never been a set goal in any of these wars you mention.  I gave you the example of Imperial Japan.  Quite the fitting example.  Suicidal die hard committed.  The emperor looked upon as godlike.  A different time when wars were won and bought peace for a longer season. 

A different time indeed that is not acceptable today. Also, that was a state to state conflict, this is not that. 

Unconditional surrender will lead to many more civilian deaths that again, do more harm than good. It may end the conflict, but at what cost? 

Your thinking is outdated. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

That is false. Taking just 1973 as an example, read about Operation Nickel Grass.  Israel was out of ammo and ready to capitulate to the Arabs.  The US sent 150 fighter aircraft and hundreds of plane loads of military equipment, flown by US personnel at great risk and literally handed over to the Israelis thereby saving their nation from imminent defeat (likely only days away).  The resulting OPEC embargo led to our oil/gas crisis.

Israel would most certainly not exist without American subsistence.

Good correction. In 73, Kissinger was de facto President during that time as Nixin was consumed by Watergate. He arranged those support as Israel was caught off guard. 

I was more thinking 47 and 67. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Good correction. In 73, Kissinger was de facto President during that time as Nixin was consumed by Watergate. He arranged those support as Israel was caught off guard. 

I was more thinking 47 and 67. 

Nixon absolutely was involved as he saw it as a way to earn political goodwill during Watergate.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Almost 40k dead civilians say otherwise. Also, the fact Israel is also carving up the west Bank with settlements also says they do not want peace or a state for Palestine.

Yes, Israel has offered the 2 state solution before, but since Bibi took over a few years ago, him and his government have said for years they reject a Palestinian state. 

So every single time Israel negotiated peace and offered a 2 state solution the Palestians eventually attacked as terrorists and now it’s Israel’s fault they don’t want to negotiate a 2 state solution once again?

Make that make sense. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

A different time indeed that is not acceptable today. Also, that was a state to state conflict, this is not that. 

Unconditional surrender will lead to many more civilian deaths that again, do more harm than good. It may end the conflict, but at what cost? 

Your thinking is outdated. 

Unconditional surrender is the only way wars end “well”. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Your thinking is outdated. 

I agree there was a time when wars were decisively won. 

posted by jmog

Unconditional surrender is the only way wars end “well”. 

Yes and no.

For example: when Germany surrendered the first time, the leaders of the other countries saw fit to impose the Treaty of Versailles in them. And we all know what that gave rise to in the years following. It ultimately didn't end well. 

posted by CenterBHSFan

Yes and no.

For example: when Germany surrendered the first time, the leaders of the other countries saw fit to impose the Treaty of Versailles in them. And we all know what that gave rise to in the years following. It ultimately didn't end well. 

The treaty of Versailles was in no way shape or form an unconditional surrender.  There was an armistice.  Then a treaty of punishment.  A treaty that actually continued the war at a low level mostly economic.  Germany was by no means pacified.  Just the opposite in fact.  The reignition of open hostilities began just 20yrs later.