195
submitted 1 year ago by mwguy@infosec.pub to c/world@lemmy.world

By Henri Astier BBC News


Israel has suggested that the long-term aim of its military campaign in Gaza is to sever all links with the territory.

Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said that once Hamas had been defeated, Israel would end its "responsibility for life in the Gaza Strip".

Before the conflict, Israel supplied Gaza with most of its energy needs and monitored imports into the territory.

...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MxM111@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

If there is no Hamas in power, why would they have continued blockade?

[-] NewDark 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Tell me this, place yourself in the shoes of an average Gazan at the age of 18. With all the destruction, violence, and oppression you've witnessed, would you not become a "terrorist" against your oppressor? There won't be an end to Hamas without an end of the abysmal material conditions and violence. Hamas was literally funded and legitimized by Israel to manufacture consent for their ethnic clensing campaign.

They will continue to blockade as long as Palestinians exist, I gaurentee it.

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

"Tell me this, place yourself in the shoes of an average Vietnamese at the age of 18 (in 1974). With all the destruction, violence, and oppression you've witnessed, would you not become a 'terrorist' against your oppressor?"

Feel free to replace with Japanese in the US in 1945 in interment camps, or Jews in Europe in 1945, or Mexicans in the 1930s, etc.

There's quite a lot of populations throughout history that have been harmed by others, and yet within a generation live in peace next to them. People of the generation that were harmed often have prejudice and distrust towards those who carried out the harm, but rarely themselves harm in turn.

Don't normalize terrorism and violence targeting civilians. It's not a normal part of the cycle of things, and the exceptional factor here is religious orthodoxy, which does have a long history across many forms of barbarism carried out on innocents.

If we want peace in the middle east, the only path to it is promoting atheism in the middle east.

Because as history has shown over and over and over, you are 100% wrong about what humans might do to one another in retribution when the self-righteous entitlement to harm one another religion provides is taken out of the picture.

[-] NewDark 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's so many problems with this take.

  • I absolutely sympathize with the Vietnamese cause during that war. The United States were LITERALLY the invaders and deserved retaliation / defense.
  • Gaza has been an open air prison for 16 years, with horrifying material conditions, which is precisely WHY the average age is 18. Here's a short that explains them as concisely as I've seen. I would 100% sympathize with Japanese or Jewish terrorism under that level of barbarity. Also, to be clear, those camps in all those situations were wrong. Are you defending them?
  • West Bank, which has no Hamas, is still an apartheid state where the people who are acting with the Israelis are STILL GETTING FUCKED OVER by Israel and subjected to settler colonial terrorism.
  • Obviously I don't like terrorism as a method, but at a certain point, it becomes the only option. Peaceful protests have been met with bullets and international silence. See the Great March of Return, 13,000 Palestinians wounded and 1,400 killed. What's the lesson there do you think?

This is primarily not a religious conflict, it's territorial and racial.

Please tell me you would be super chill with having your home stolen by some fucking white guy from Brooklyn because the newly formed government wants to form an ethnostate, because I sure fucking wouldn't be.

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Here's a short that explains them as concisely as I've seen.

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] kromem@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Obviously I don't like terrorism as a method, but at a certain point, it becomes the only option.

No, it's never the option, and always has blowback that harms the very people in whose interests it was rationalized in the first place.

Go ahead and point to when guerilla attacks on civilians achieved the original aims and didn't result in retaliatory violence.

Also, to be clear, those camps in all those situations were wrong. Are you defending them?

Did you read my comment before going off on a rant?

The point of discussion was that people being harmed by other people inevitably results in generational retributive violence. And that's simply not correct.

Nowhere am I saying that the initial violence is a good thing. I'm just pointing out that this sort of rationalization is BS. That's not how it actually works. (Normal people realize that bad people of an identity group doing bad things doesn't reflect all people of that identity group, so even if there's a desire for justice against the specific people that did bad things, that doesn't translate into a desire to do bad things to any member of that identity group for non-psychopaths.)

Most civilian victims of violence want nothing more than to avoid future violence. They don't want to commit their lives to more violence.

The exception is religious violence, where there's a long history of commitment to violence (retributive or not) out of a sense of justice inherent to it and an 'otherness' and superiority over anyone that isn't part of the same religious group.

This is primarily not a religious conflict, it's territorial and racial.

Oh really now? So how many of the Hamas terrorists attacking civilians in their homes and burning children alive were atheists do you reckon? 50%?

And how many Zionists who refuse to consider any kind of compromise regarding Palestine's existence are atheist? My guess is not much more than the relative number of atheist Zionists in 66 CE who thought it would be a great idea to rebel against Rome because God was going to be on their side in the resulting conflict.

This is primarily a longstanding religious conflict.

Racial!?! WTF are you talking about? The DNA of Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians is effectively identical. They are the same people. The difference is primarily religious, and extends a bit beyond that to cultural differences. Sure, Ashkenazi and Sephardic only share half the DNA. So that portion of the population are simply partial relatives of the Palestinians, as opposed to effectively the same people 'racially' - the equivalent of a half Palestinian.

If at a snap of one's fingers both sides suddenly became 100% atheist, there'd be nothing more to be fighting about. Just like the many, many peoples throughout history who have had atrocities committed against them by neighbors and yet generations after live in complete peace with one another.

This is almost exclusively a religious conflict, with Jews and Muslims at each other's necks and with Christians only giving a crap because they think Jerusalem must be inhabited by the Jews for their zombie to float down from the sky. The underlying reasons are much more insane than the more palatable reasons that get talked about publicly by the parties involved, but those insane underlying reasons are the real ones, and the ultimate driving force behind why there will never be peace in the region as long as any of those three motivations have a seat at the negotiating table.

[-] NewDark 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Look, you're obviously a debate pervert. I'm not going to engage your entire diatribe, but a few things to note...

The blowback was the Hamas attack. The Israelis are the ones who created and have control over the conditions. The attack was the response. History did not start on Oct 7th.

This is an imperfect example, but if you mistreat a dog for long enough and it lashes out, who is at fault?

If it was religious, why would they be sterilizing Ethiopian jews?

If I'm a Palestinian, and I become a convert, can I join Israel?

What percent of Isreal has a Jewish faith, and what percent is non-religious?

[-] kromem@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

This is an imperfect example, but if you mistreat a dog for long enough and it lashes out, who is at fault?

Pretty sure the dog gets put down, even if the owner was negligent.

What percent of Isreal has a Jewish faith, and what percent is non-religious?

Good first step. Now look at whether attitudes towards expulsion of Arabs from Israel is a minority view or majority view depending on that identification...

If it was religious, why would they be sterilizing Ethiopian jews?

Huh? I don't see sterility listed as a side effect for the medication they were given. So "why were the Ethiopian Jews given birth control with ambiguous degrees of informed consent" is certainly a topic worth exploring, but is quite different from what you stated.

If I'm a Palestinian, and I become a convert, can I join Israel?

No, and that's messed up, especially given the risks they face in Palestine.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
195 points (96.7% liked)

World News

39096 readers
2672 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS