[Fasces]

Go back to page 1, if you like. We can revisit the potential of a hypothetical human stampede to kill as many as the last four days of air strikes.

[SpecialOlympian]

Should Israel have just kept an even tighter blockade? I recall the complaints circa 2008 were that Israel's blockade was too tight, too inhumane. Now the criticism is that it let too many Gazans work in Israel.

Which one is it?

They should let Palestinians have their own state and stop trapping them in open air prisons, you putz.

Also that's not the criticism, nice reading comprehension. Netanyahu tried a divide and conquer technique and then made Hamas powerful enough to attack his own people. He's a corrupt, rightwing authoritarian dipshit; of course his plans were shit and led to future failures in pursuit of short term solutions.

[wat0n]

Go back to page 1, if you like. We can revisit the potential of a hypothetical human stampede to kill as many as the last four days of air strikes.

So a completely nonsensical plan, OK

They should let Palestinians have their own state and stop trapping them in open air prisons, you putz.

Also that's not the criticism, nice reading comprehension. Netanyahu tried a divide and conquer technique and then made Hamas powerful enough to attack his own people. He's a corrupt, rightwing authoritarian dipshit; of course his plans were shit and led to future failures in pursuit of short term solutions.

How would any of this lead Hamas to sign a peace agreement with Israel?

I perfectly recall the criticism to the blockade from circa 2008 by the way.

[SpecialOlympian]

How would any of this lead Hamas to sign a peace agreement with Israel?

Netanyahu never wanted one. A peace agreement means you have to stop bombing the people in your giant prison to curb their population growth, and it's the first step to allowing people statehood. Which he never wanted.

He wanted weakened, divergent Palestinian factions that his government could slowly starve to death. Because he never wanted a Palestinian state and didn't want to absorb a large Palestinian populace of potential voters into Israel.

He's a rightwing psycho who thought he could divide and conquer because all rightwing authoritarian leaders are overly confident in their ability to accomplish long term goals.

Is anyone on this forum stupid enough to think Netanyahu has a shred of humanity in him? Raise your hand and then get on the short bus if you do.

[Fasces]

So a completely nonsensical plan, OK

And what's yours? Or are you fine with "2 confirmed Hamas militants dead [alongside thousands of civilians]" - the current Israeli strategy?

[wat0n]

Netanyahu never wanted one. A peace agreement means you have to stop bombing the people in your giant prison to curb their population growth, and it's the first step to allowing people statehood. Which he never wanted.

He wanted weakened, divergent Palestinian factions that his government could slowly starve to death. Because he never wanted a Palestinian state and didn't want to absorb a large Palestinian populace of potential voters into Israel.

He's a rightwing psycho who thought he could divide and conquer because all rightwing authoritarian leaders are overly confident in their ability to accomplish long term goals.

Is anyone on this forum stupid enough to think Netanyahu has a shred of humanity in him? Raise your hand and then get on the short bus if you do.

No, Netanyahu is a psycho. Good we can agree on this at least, he's basically a smarter Trump, who's basically thrown his country under the bus to avoid being tried for corruption (a good warning of what will happen if Trump is elected, he'll clearly do it to avoid going to jail).

But... He wasn't in charge when Hamas took over Gaza. He was also against the disengagement from Gaza in 2005, and resigned as minister because he was against it. He did so of course because he wanted to keep Gaza too.

Netanyahu is guilty of many things, but he can't be honestly blamed for Hamas' rule of Gaza. That was
a largely an internal Palestinian affair. Whatever he did after, he did accepting that removing Hamas would be a hard sell.

@Fasces Israel should topple Hamas, hand Gaza to the international community and/or the PA. Hamas will never negotiate a peace agreement, it will never recognize anything the PLO signs or negotiates, if it has a chance of pulling another massacre like earlier last month it will take it. Basically, it must go.

Then, Israel should sign an agreement with the PA. If it's not possible, you need two to tango after all, it should withdraw as many settlers as possible from the West Bank.

Israel should do what everyone knows would have needed to happen after a hypothetical agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Hamas would have never accepted it, it would have claimed it wasn't part of any talks and that it doesn't recognize shit it hasn't agreed to.

[SpecialOlympian]

"How would a guy I call 'Smart Trump' who gladly throws his country under the bus make short-sighted decisions that blew up in his face?"

I don't know, if only anyone had shared any kinds of articles that might detail this at all. Oh well.

[Fasces]

To clarify, @wat0n, your position is that the current Israeli strategy is the most humane possible strategy that can 'topple Hamas' with the least civilian casualties?

[Rich]

In any case, everyone I have seen on here criticizing Israel has also criticized the violent Islamist regressive militia named Hamas.

I haven't and partly for the same reasons I didn't criticise Al Qaeda for 9/11. I actually considered criticism of Al Qaeda's tactics as blasphemous. It was the most outrageous desecration of the memory of Winston Churchill and Bomber Harris. As I've tried to explain with the half a million children and the Iraqi sanctions the Liberals are very good at creating demons which then retroactively justify their policies.

But what about the Arch Demon, what about Adolph Hitler, the biggest demon of them all. Yes even him. Adolph Hitler wasn't Adolph Hitler in 1914. He wasn't Adolph Hitler in 1918. As far as we can make out he wasn't even a Jew hater at the time of the armistice. By late 1919 early 1920 he seems to have become a Jew hater, but it wasn't really till he ended up in Landsberg and the demise of Ludendorff, that Adolph Hitler truly became the character we know and love. (Did Adolph Hitler really have much competion till Joffrey Baratheon come along).

In WW1 the Allies had a policy of starve and surrender. In November 1918 the Germans signed the armistice, gave up vast amounts of territory and disbanded their army in return for nothing. Just like the Zionists and their Liberal errand boys are demanding Hamas turn over the hostages in return for nothing. Then in 1918 the Liberals said "nah, nah, nah, nah, suckers, suckers. Our policy is not really starve or surrender, its starve and surrender." The Liberals created the conditions for the Bavarian Soviet Republic. It is only after the fall of the Bavarian Soviet Republic that Hitler actually seems to have set on the path of becoming a far right wing Jew hating extremist.

Germany was not a Jew hating nation before 1890, before the Liberals started the encirclement. But Adolph Hitler proved to be the perfect demon, for the Liberals to say: We told you so. We told you that the Germans were evil militarist oppressors. The only mistake we ever made with those evil Germans was not being harsher, harder and earlier with them.

I've not been afraid to criticise Islam. Even before 9/11. I was trying to tell people that Islam was not a religion of peace or women's emancipation. But I'm not going to blame these Hamas atrocities on Islam. Even assuming that they were actually done by Hamas and haven't been faked or falsely blamed by the Zionist media and their western liberal lackeys.

This would be no different if the people of Gaza were Christian or Buddhist or Atheist or Pagan. Treat a people like you've treated the people of Gaza and they will strike back any way they can. They will hurt you any way they can and they won't worry about the rules you set them, that you hypocrites don't even bother to keep to yourself.

[SpecialOlympian]

Germany wasn’t even old enough to rent a car in 1890. But it was very nice of Otto Von Bismarck to unify Germany without any of the pervading antisemitism Europe had for centuries. He truly was a great statesman.

And Bismarck’s Germany was a paradise. Until the liberals ruined it.

Note: 1910’s liberals and current liberals are exactly the same.

I find it really funny how in your retelling of history you just kind of gloss over the grossly incompetent aggression of Kaiser Wilhelm in your desire to attack liberals: a monolithic political ideology that has remained unchanged since the dawn of time.

Like yeah the end of WW1 could have been handled better but the Germans fucked up twice, hard. And it’s just so funny how you want to make them blameless and the vague ~liberals~ the source of all evil.

[wat0n]

"How would a guy I call 'Smart Trump' who gladly throws his country under the bus make short-sighted decisions that blew up in his face?"

I don't know, if only anyone had shared any kinds of articles that might detail this at all. Oh well.

The strategy mentioned in the ToI article you cited is very much consistent with those saying Israel should have just held negotiations with Hamas. I recall quite a few arguing that, for humanitarian reasons.

Want a great example of Netanyahu undoubtedly throwing his country under the bus? The whole "point" for his judicial reform that has led to mass protests in Israel, and anyone can tell, is to make sure he won't be prosecuted for his corruption cases. And this definitely had a lot to do with the attack, and particularly the associated intelligence failure.

To clarify, @wat0n, your position is that the current Israeli strategy is the most humane possible strategy that can 'topple Hamas' with the least civilian casualties?

If we accept the goal is to topple Hamas while (obviously) keeping Israeli territory safe, yes. Even Egypt doesn't want to risk opening access to its territory, which should say a lot about risk perception.

[albionfagan]

Anti-Semitism has a long, violent history in what would become Germany. It is not much different from any other European country in that resepect, though.

One of the ironies of all this is this depiction of radical Islam, and for many just Islam, as some uniquely, genocidally anti-Semitic ideology. Of course there had been anti-Semitism in Islamic countries/empires prior to the 20th Century but by and large Jews lived consistently freer of the fear of massacre than they did in Europe. We in Europe like to harp on about our tolerant, free cultures but we drove a whole peoples out of Europe. The reason anti-Semitism is relatively low in Europe nowadays is for the same reason you see the empty Jewish Quarters across Europe; there are no jews left.

[SpecialOlympian]

"...and Adolph Hitler, a simple German patriot who would become history's greatest victim of Liberalism, proved to be the demon the woke liberal scolds would lecture people on for generations..."

-A brief Summary of European History, as Narrated by Rich

In November 1918 the Germans signed the armistice, gave up vast amounts of territory and disbanded their army in return for nothing.

Yeah, that's typically the deal losers get when they wage wars of aggression and lose. I'm cackling like a hyena now fuck haha

Like fuckin' Keynes was there with the negotiators saying, "Hey guys, this is a bad deal. We shouldn't do this, it will lead to future problems."

There are so many valid arguments you could make but, somehow, you went with, "Germany under the Kaiser was the real victim of WW1, and the aggressor was modern liberalism."

[SpecialOlympian]

Rich for real you should listen to the Behind the Bastards podcast on Gordon Libby because it's a great example of why you shouldn't reference Nazi Germany and Adolph Hitler as inspirations for everything.

They're doing a 6 parter on it, and the first 5 parts are up. It's good, and I recommend everyone listen to it. Its got commercials but you can skip through them with a thumb click. Oh fuck, his life is so fucking funny.

My favorite part is how he tries to recruit criminals to do Watergate crimes with him and Gordon Libby is like,

"You think I'll snitch?"

*Libby holds his hand over an open flame, scarring his skin black*

"That's the proof I won't snitch."

And then hardened criminals realize he's insane and just immediately ghost him. And this is straight from his autobiography, which I plan to read once I finish A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Also a very good book, and also old English writing is shit which I'm pretty sure is 50% of Mark Twain's inspiration for the book: just reading old feudal stuff and thinking, "Get to the fucking point!"

Peradventure, Sir Gawain came upon Sir Lancelot, and they clashed lances, and Sir Lancelot knocked he from he horse, and Sir Gawain stood up, and he trifled Sir Lancelot on he head, and both smoten to the ground they wrastled, until upon them came Sir Galangalong, and he seeing them in battle smote them both, and they came tumbling down, and peradventure they swore oaths to each other to be as brothers. For who soeth could show such strength and not be brethren? And so they rode north, and riding up a stream they came upon three maidens; one age of fifteen winters, and one age of 30 winters, and one age of 45 winters.

And Sire Lancelot took the youngest and rode west, and Sire Galangalong took the middle and road east, and Sire Gawain took the eldest, and rode north; and thereupon peradventure they parted ways and were off on seperate journeys, and so on, and so on, and so on."

Eat shit England, your history sucks. Which is exactly the point of A Connectictut Yankee: a simple 1875 engineer who knows how to mix gunpowder from America dominates your stupid, loser country.

[Rich]

Germany wasn’t even old enough to rent a car in 1890. But it was very nice of Otto Von Bismarck to unify Germany without any of the pervading antisemitism Europe had for centuries. He truly was a great statesman.

And Bismarck’s Germany was a paradise. Until the liberals ruined it.

Note: 1910’s liberals and current liberals are exactly the same.

I find it really funny how in your retelling of history you just kind of gloss over the grossly incompetent aggression of Kaiser Wilhelm in your desire to attack liberals: a monolithic political ideology that has remained unchanged since the dawn of time.

Like yeah the end of WW1 could have been handled better but the Germans fucked up twice, hard. And it’s just so funny how you want to make them blameless and the vague ~liberals~ the source of all evil.

I'm slow writer so my posts will always be shorter than ideal and so will be missing much nuance. But you are absolutely right the Germans were not innocent either. The occupation of South West Africa, what we can say about that? It didn't always follow the highest ethical standards. And then there was Bismark's disastrous Kulturkampf against the Catholics. If you're determined enough you can pretty much always find evidence of a country's evilness, and we're not exactly barren for material when it comes to nineteenth century Prussia and Germany.

My point would be that Germany was not exceptional except in the sense that every nation is unique. So no Germany was not some haven of inncoence and virtue, but more than that did Germany respond wisely to Russia's partial mobilisation in 1914? Certainly not in my view. Did Germany respond wisely to France's refusal to guarantee non intervention in 1914? Again no. Did Germans overall respond wisely to the Versailles treaty? Hardly. Many Germans at many stages, made choices that we not only might find morally distasteful but also seem rather dumb.

But take Northern Ireland for example. I'm very happy to criticise Catholicism. I'm very happy to challenge the evil WASP, evil Protestant, evil British narratives. However Ian Paisley was a murderer. I don't just mean that rhetorically, legally he was a murderer, even before the Provos had come into being tired to organaise "atrocities" and then blame them on the (official) IRA. There was horrible discrimination rising even to murder in late sixties Northern Ireland, when the Civil Rights movement took off,

Were the Irish Catholics innocents? No. Was the provisional IRA a wise response? No. But do I blame the IRAs atrocities on them being evil Catholics or stupid Irish? No I don't.

The wise choice would be for the Palestinians to abandon insurgency altogether. Is that going to happen? No. So I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for making the unwise choice. I'm not going to blame them for making the ethically challenging choice. Because in these sort of situations the most aggressive, violent and ruthless people will almost inevitably rise to dominance.

[SpecialOlympian]

Was the provisional IRA a wise response? .

I'm just armcharing this as an American, but I'm going to say: Yes.

Ireland was occupied by England for hundreds of years. It's where the English developed their colonial strategies to make sure the sun never set on their empire. Did anyone in the international community stand up for the Irish then? No.

Israel is banking on the same thing that England did: We can occupy this space with minimal casualties forever. They banked on the idea that they could shed criticism, never face any repercussions for it, and continue their colonial occupation with a few casualties here and there forever, in the name of capital profit.

Nobody is coming to help the Palestinians. Certainly not America. Hell, we're probably going to give Israel a few more billion dollars in cash and weapons because they came to us crying with a booboo.

Now again, I'm American. My understanding of European or Middle Eastern history is minimal. But one of my favorite stories is how the Chocktaw Nation of American Natives in America, themselves starving in the 1800's, managed to scrounge up $176 during the Irish potatoe famine. And 180 years later the Irish erected a statue to honor it. A small sum that amounts to about $5,000 now was remembered, and honored. And I think that's beautiful.

And Ireland is one of the few countries not afraid to stand with the Palestinians today. I'm American, but I'm proud of where my family came from. And if the Irish say someone is oppressed, I think you can take their word for it.

Nobody has stepped in to help the Palestinians for the past 70 years. And nobody will now. Why should they rely upon anyone besides themselves now? I'm cheering them on because Fuck the IDF. I'm sick of the narrative that the IDF is anything besides a conscription based army of violent agents of apartheid who only exist to preserve an Israeli apartheid ethnostate.

[Skynet]

How the pro Israel lobby silences critics.

[albionfagan]

The Irish conflict was not about religion, unless you're talking about broadly generalised identities. Irish Republicanism was pioneered by Protestants.

[SpecialOlympian]

https://youtu.be/ImuqyB4ROEk?list=LL

How the pro Israel lobby silences critics.

For us Westerners with shorter attention spans, I like this example:

For non-Americans (god save ye), Jon Stewart is an American Jew. But not a Zionist. He helped write this skit, and has been consistent in his rejection of Zionism.

[SpecialOlympian]

Armored cars and drones and guns came to take away our sons
But every man must stand behind the men behind the wire

From the little streets of sharie
We've strung up another Isralie
Come and dance ye one and all

Armored cars and drones and guns came to take away our sons
And everyone must stand behind the men behind the wire