There is fighting back, and then there is their response.
Think of it like the Proud Boys went to Mexico and gunned down a small town and took hostages back to Texas. Mexico attacks the Proud Boys in response, then starts wiping out hospitals, schools, residential zones in Oklahoma and New Mexico, places and people that have nothing to do with the Proud Boys. And the world stands by and watches.
The vast majority of Palestinians killed were women and children. Israel didn’t fight back against Hamas, it’s goal is Genocide and if Hamas disappears then Israel won’t have their precious excuse anymore.
There are no good moves for the oppressed group in an apartheid state. Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by the US for fighting against the South Africa apartheid state
No but some actions have a bigger return than others. To me the October 7 attacks don’t seem like they gained much consider how many have died, but like said, it’s not for me to calculate that or decide if it’s a good exchange. Maybe Gazans consider it a good outcome, I dunno.
Gazans are disposables for every party involved besides gazans themselves. Both Hamas heads elsewhere and Bibi’s admin had a streak of luck with these attack and response since it gave them a reason to be and get international support. Although this situation wasn’t okay since the formation of Israel as a state, I don’t side with people who want either Palestine or Israel to become undone since both exist for longer than I’m here, but what I miss is a peacekeeping mission that’d at least stop the bloodshed and it’s funding.
It might be hard to get a peacekeeping mission going there since many countries would never want to get involved in the political clusterfuck that Israel/Palestine thing is. You’d need a country that’s acceptable to both sides and who wouldn’t mind getting involved when things get tough. What to do when one side strikes against the other and so on.
Yep, moreso after Balkans and after US leaving Afghan. No one wants to take responsibility and send their guys as a mere body shield, especially as other countries are not prepared to react on their troops being killed by either side, especially Israel. That, though, is the only way I see these attrocities getting stopped, because I don’t see any economical mechanism slowing down the genocide of gazans. In spite of all shit US and UN had for being involved in foreign politics, that’s the time they can do good and save people, and it’s kind of dishearting that it’s the time they’d not as long as it’s possible.
There is one economic way to stop the genocide: the US and the EU threatening Israel with closing their markets to any Israeli product, including weapons.
Palestine is actually an interesting A/B test: you have Gaza, that is resisting, and West Bank, that is collaborating, and you can compare the results:
Gaza is being subjected to periodical flare-ups of genocide, causing much consternation in the world media, and despite the world governments largely continuing to back Israel, the sheer mask-off nature of the violence seems to have caused the public opinion to shift.
West Bank is being subjected to constant low level ethnic cleansing, disposession, and removal. There are occasional pogroms, but overall it’s been quiet and ignorable. Consequently, most people forget they even exist, and those that do can get away with “hoping for peace”, thoughts-and-prayers style, as the removal continues.
I wasn’t suggesting anything, I was asking what the numbers are like. I think how many people will die as a result of each policy is something that probably does make sense to consider.
I’m sorry, it’s hard to tell if someone is sincere or Just Asking Questions. In this case, the options are a slow genocide (West Bank) or a fast genocide (Gaza), so the short term numbers alone paint a misleading picture of the relative merits of each strategy. Israel’s gonna remove the brown people either way.
I’d just be interested to see how over time if those two numbers differ. If there’s a big difference then that’d of course weigh on the considerations. If they’re close to each other, then that’d also affect it. I just found population estimates and death estimates for current Gaza conflict but not really a good comparison for the two.
Sure, the slow genocide will be slower of course. It’s hardly worth bothering to google something that obvious. Still genocide though. Israelis are using violence to kill and/or displace Palestinian residents of the West Bank. They’ll take it all, eventually.
The victims fought back, which is not allowed
There is fighting back, and then there is their response.
Think of it like the Proud Boys went to Mexico and gunned down a small town and took hostages back to Texas. Mexico attacks the Proud Boys in response, then starts wiping out hospitals, schools, residential zones in Oklahoma and New Mexico, places and people that have nothing to do with the Proud Boys. And the world stands by and watches.
Do you want a closer comparison? And you don’t even need to imagine.
The US army stealing land from natives and saying the natives are the bad guys because they retaliate against the occupation.
The vast majority of Palestinians killed were women and children. Israel didn’t fight back against Hamas, it’s goal is Genocide and if Hamas disappears then Israel won’t have their precious excuse anymore.
Not sure fighting back was the best move in this case, since it caused this sort of response. But it’s not really for me to do that math
There are no good moves for the oppressed group in an apartheid state. Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by the US for fighting against the South Africa apartheid state
No but some actions have a bigger return than others. To me the October 7 attacks don’t seem like they gained much consider how many have died, but like said, it’s not for me to calculate that or decide if it’s a good exchange. Maybe Gazans consider it a good outcome, I dunno.
Gazans are disposables for every party involved besides gazans themselves. Both Hamas heads elsewhere and Bibi’s admin had a streak of luck with these attack and response since it gave them a reason to be and get international support. Although this situation wasn’t okay since the formation of Israel as a state, I don’t side with people who want either Palestine or Israel to become undone since both exist for longer than I’m here, but what I miss is a peacekeeping mission that’d at least stop the bloodshed and it’s funding.
It might be hard to get a peacekeeping mission going there since many countries would never want to get involved in the political clusterfuck that Israel/Palestine thing is. You’d need a country that’s acceptable to both sides and who wouldn’t mind getting involved when things get tough. What to do when one side strikes against the other and so on.
Yep, moreso after Balkans and after US leaving Afghan. No one wants to take responsibility and send their guys as a mere body shield, especially as other countries are not prepared to react on their troops being killed by either side, especially Israel. That, though, is the only way I see these attrocities getting stopped, because I don’t see any economical mechanism slowing down the genocide of gazans. In spite of all shit US and UN had for being involved in foreign politics, that’s the time they can do good and save people, and it’s kind of dishearting that it’s the time they’d not as long as it’s possible.
There is one economic way to stop the genocide: the US and the EU threatening Israel with closing their markets to any Israeli product, including weapons.
Palestine is actually an interesting A/B test: you have Gaza, that is resisting, and West Bank, that is collaborating, and you can compare the results:
Gaza is being subjected to periodical flare-ups of genocide, causing much consternation in the world media, and despite the world governments largely continuing to back Israel, the sheer mask-off nature of the violence seems to have caused the public opinion to shift.
West Bank is being subjected to constant low level ethnic cleansing, disposession, and removal. There are occasional pogroms, but overall it’s been quiet and ignorable. Consequently, most people forget they even exist, and those that do can get away with “hoping for peace”, thoughts-and-prayers style, as the removal continues.
You be the judge.
How have the deaths been, comparing the two?
Is your suggestion to let the Israelis take your land more slowly, so they don’t kill as many of your children?
By the way, 60,000 of them are Americans.
I wasn’t suggesting anything, I was asking what the numbers are like. I think how many people will die as a result of each policy is something that probably does make sense to consider.
I’m sorry, it’s hard to tell if someone is sincere or Just Asking Questions. In this case, the options are a slow genocide (West Bank) or a fast genocide (Gaza), so the short term numbers alone paint a misleading picture of the relative merits of each strategy. Israel’s gonna remove the brown people either way.
I’d just be interested to see how over time if those two numbers differ. If there’s a big difference then that’d of course weigh on the considerations. If they’re close to each other, then that’d also affect it. I just found population estimates and death estimates for current Gaza conflict but not really a good comparison for the two.
Sure, the slow genocide will be slower of course. It’s hardly worth bothering to google something that obvious. Still genocide though. Israelis are using violence to kill and/or displace Palestinian residents of the West Bank. They’ll take it all, eventually.