• NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    but also from a dire necessity given the amount of aggression Israel was facing from its surroundings from the start on.

    Have you asked yourself why Israel has and had so many adversaries? Hint: Fucking ethnic cleansing.

    Had Israel not received this support from “the West” and given the sheer amounts of adversaries it faced and faces, it simply wouldn’t exist anymore

    Yeah why is that a bad thing?

    Hamas’ goal still is the annihilation of Israel and - as shown in October '23 - its population.

    33% of people killed on October 7th were military targets, and that’s with Israeli friendly fire (which we know happened because they, among other things, bombed houses full of Israeli civilians to prevent them from becoming hostages) so that argument doesn’t hold up. Compare with what happens when the IDF rolls into town. That aside find me a quote from Iran or Hamas from this decade actually calling for the genocide of Jews, because I can find plenty from Israeli officials.

    And again, there are a multitude of different ways to protect Jews from the genocide you say will happen other than fully supporting the genocide of Palestinians. This is a false dichotomy.

    • Quittenbrot@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah why is that a bad thing?

      Just to be clear: you’re seriously asking why it is a bad thing of a country is annihilated by its neighbours?

      33% of people killed on October 7th were military targets

      Your point being? That it’s tough luck for the remaining allegedly 66% civilian “targets”? Wouldn’t you agree that Hamas showed a very high level of brutality, also against civilians - think Nova Festival Massacre?

      calling for the genocide of Jews

      We were talking about the annihilation of Israel here, something both parties still desire.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Just to be clear: you’re seriously asking why it is a bad thing of a country is annihilated by its neighbours?

        So… Uh… Countries aren’t annihilated. They’re dismantled, dissolved, overthrown, but not annihilated. People can be annihilated, which is obviously not what I’m talking about. [Edit: Censored by the mods (see the Israel section of rule 4)].

        Your point being? That it’s tough luck for the remaining allegedly 66% civilian “targets”?

        No, my point is that Hamas went in with other goals that likely didn’t include simply killing civilians.

        Wouldn’t you agree that Hamas showed a very high level of brutality, also against civilians - think Nova Festival Massacre?

        Oh yeah absolutely, but note that the Nova massacre was heavily publicized specifically because it was notable. The kibbutz fared much better, which makes it unlikely that Hamas went in specifically to kill Jews. I mean there’s a reason Israel kept making up shit in the months after October 7th; they wanted the attack to look more brutal than it actually was. Now the attack was brutal, but for example the UN found no evidence for systematic sexual violence by Hamas, and no beheaded babies either.

        What I want to say here is: Hamas and the rest of the Palestinian resistance can be reasoned with to avoid the possibilities you’re imagining, especially since the IDF is still one of the most advanced militaries in the world. It’s not like they’d be sitting ducks without Western support.

        • Quittenbrot@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          People can be annihilated, which is obviously not what I’m talking about.

          But this is what would be (and has historically been) at stake. Such a war would be (and was) not only about dismantling an administrative entity such as the state Israel but inevitably would also include the killing of the inhabitants of this state. That happened when the military coalition of Arab states invaded Israel in '48 and it btw also happened when Israel occupied Gaza. Muslim religious leaders declaring the war against Israel per fatwa as djihad didn’t help either. The core problem is that too many people (on both sides!) think they are in the right of denying the opposing site existence. This will never lead anywhere. Although superior in numbers, the Arab states will never achieve a Middle East without Israel due to the Western support that precisely due to this scenario will never cease to ensure Israel’s safety. At the same time, power-hungry corrupt politicians such as Netanyahu that need war to stay in office and out of prison teaming up with fundamentalist Israelis dreaming of a Middle East without Palestine will never succeed. The knot must be cut - starting with, on both sides, isolating those that think there is a possibility where only one side will prevail while the other gets destroyed. This won’t ever happen.

          the IDF is still one of the most advanced militaries in the world. It’s not like they’d be sitting ducks without Western support.

          Almost all large equipment is in one way or the other attributed to the US or another larger Western power. Israel is an isolated, small land surrounded by parties that more or less openly seek to destroy it. It is regionally only respected for its military power, nothing else. As developed as it is, it has almost no resources and is highly dependend on access to markets and the help of others.

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Dude, formatting.

            But this is what would be (and has historically been) at stake.

            No it’s not? I can recall off the top of my head multiple examples where military conquest or regime change happened without mass civilian casualties.

            That happened when the military coalition of Arab states invaded Israel in '48

            No it’s not; that’s pseudohistory. Jewish civilians for the most part weren’t expelled or attacked with the Arab advance. Israel likes to claim that they’re at threat of extermination, but the Arab armies’ conduct during the war of 1948 proves that that’s nothing more than projection, a tool regularly used by fascists. As they say, every accusation is a confession.

            Morris also said that despite their rhetoric, Arab armies committed few atrocities and no large-scale massacre of prisoners took place when circumstances might have allowed them to happen, as when they took the Old City of Jerusalem or the villages of Atarot, Neve Yaakov, Nitzanim, Gezer and Mishmar Hayarden.[6] On 28 May, when the inhabitants and fighters of the Old City surrendered, in fear for their lives, the Transjordanian Arab Legion protected them from the mob and even wounded or shot dead other Arabs.

            -Wikipedia

            Muslim religious leaders declaring the war against Israel per fatwa as djihad didn’t help either.

            I don’t think you understand what jihad is.

            • Quittenbrot@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              22 hours ago

              I can recall off the top of my head multiple examples where military conquest or regime change happened without mass civilian casualties.

              I’m talking about Israel/Palestine specifically. And I guess we both know things tend to take the more violent route there if two options exist.

              No it’s not; that’s pseudohistory.

              There have been massacres by Arabs against Israelis (and vice versa, just to be sure). No side can claim clean hands.

              I don’t think you understand what jihad is.

              All I know is that the usage here, i.e. calling the war against Israel a duty toward God, isn’t making the conflict a more peaceful one.

              • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                22 hours ago

                There have been massacres by Arabs against Israelis (and vice versa, just to be sure).

                There were, but they were very much the exception rather than the rule. Again,

                Morris also said that despite their rhetoric, Arab armies committed few atrocities and no large-scale massacre of prisoners took place when circumstances might have allowed them to happen, as when they took the Old City of Jerusalem or the villages of Atarot, Neve Yaakov, Nitzanim, Gezer and Mishmar Hayarden.

                The facts are clear that Palestine’s Jewish population was not at risk of extermination or displacement by the Arab armies.

                All I know is that the usage here, i.e. calling the war against Israel a duty toward God, isn’t making the conflict a more peaceful one.

                Uh… You do realize that both sides were literally at war right with Zionists actively committing ethnic cleansing right? What kind of peace did you want Palestinians to have?

                • Quittenbrot@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  The facts are clear that Palestine’s Jewish population was not at risk of extermination or displacement by the Arab armies.

                  The same author (Morris) also said this:

                  While Benny Morris considers the real picture of the Arab aims to be more complex, notably because they were well aware they could not defeat the Jews,[101] he argues that the Yishuv was indeed threatened with extinction and feared what would happen if the Arabs won.

                  We can exchange snippets from authors aligning with our views all day without making any progress at all.

                  Fact is: there won’t be the necessary trust from Palestinians towards actors such as the IDF for them to live under their rule - there won’t be the necessary trust of Israelis towards actors auch as Hamas for them to live under their rule.

                  They’ll never live in one state, as they each have reasonable doubt about the respective other side - hence everyone still advocating the idea of one side surpassing the other and taking over the other part is only ensuring that this conflict will never end. This includes Israelis that want to destroy Palestine - this includes Palestinians that want to destroy Israel - and those on the outside advocating either of it.

                  • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 hours ago

                    We can exchange snippets from authors aligning with our views all day without making any progress at all.

                    I mean I quoted a fact; you quoted an opinion. Notice that as an avowed Zionist and Nakba apologist Benny Morris isn’t an unbiased actor here, so while his statements of fact do mean something as a historian his opinions mean jack shit.

                    Fact is: there won’t be the necessary trust from Palestinians towards actors such as the IDF for them to live under their rule - there won’t be the necessary trust of Israelis towards actors auch as Hamas for them to live under their rule.

                    Who said anything about either of that? In the event of a one-state solution, military apparatuses on both sides should be dismantled, in the same way militias stopped operating in post-Troubles Ireland.