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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
As far as I can tell, we both stated something Morris said. I wouldn’t consider one thing a fact and the other a biased view, no matter which one. I wouldn’t consider both things “a fact” per se. But as I said, we can exchange those snippets all day long and won’t get anywhere, so I don’t see a point.
Who said anything about either of that?
Well, afaik, both Hamas and expansionist Israelis each think of a solution where they take over the entire other part, not of one where they equally cohabit in one common nation together.
Just to be clear: you’re seriously asking why it is a bad thing of a country is annihilated by its neighbours?
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?
We were talking about the annihilation of Israel here, something both parties still desire.
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)].
No, my point is that Hamas went in with other goals that likely didn’t include simply killing civilians.
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.
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.
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.
Dude, formatting.
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.
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.
-Wikipedia
I don’t think you understand what jihad is.
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.
There have been massacres by Arabs against Israelis (and vice versa, just to be sure). No side can claim clean hands.
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.
There were, but they were very much the exception rather than the rule. Again,
The facts are clear that Palestine’s Jewish population was not at risk of extermination or displacement by the Arab armies.
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?
The same author (Morris) also said this:
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.
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.
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.
As far as I can tell, we both stated something Morris said. I wouldn’t consider one thing a fact and the other a biased view, no matter which one. I wouldn’t consider both things “a fact” per se. But as I said, we can exchange those snippets all day long and won’t get anywhere, so I don’t see a point.
Well, afaik, both Hamas and expansionist Israelis each think of a solution where they take over the entire other part, not of one where they equally cohabit in one common nation together.