Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

Also, even if that's not your intention let them fight it out once and for all means you support genocide.

That is a position that shouldn't be acceptable here.
 
Kyonn said:
I gave up on the idea of a two state solution not because I took Israel's side but because I realized by the late 90s that there was no two state solution that both side would agree to. I take no side in this.
Click to expand...
But again that would mean an endorsement of the status quo which benefits Israel. In fact Israel doesn't need overt support, all it needs is apathy and impunity so it can see its colonial aspirations to completion without ramifications. Neither the Apartheid South African regime nor the ANC could agree on a solution, does that mean we should have just let the Praetorian government continue their apartheid policy without insisting on international pressure to do the right thing?

The only way this conflict ends is if Israel ends the occupation or ethnically cleanses or kills all the Palestinians. That's the choice presented to us. The question is which do you find more palatable?
 
Idxomer said:
Also, even if that's not your intention let them fight it out once and for all means you support genocide.

That is a position that shouldn't be acceptable here.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It’s tacit genocide support, coming either from malice or a toddler level understanding of the situation.
 
Kaos said:
But again that would mean an endorsement of the status quo which benefits Israel. In fact Israel doesn't need overt support, all it needs is apathy and impunity so it can see its colonial aspirations to completion without ramifications. Neither the Apartheid South African regime nor the ANC could agree on a solution, does that mean we should have just let the Praetorian government continue their apartheid policy without insisting on international pressure to do the right thing?
Click to expand...

I'm not endorsing anything. I'm simply saying I in no way want to be a party to this conflict.
 
Idxomer said:
Comparing Pearl Harbor to what happened in October is one of the most baffling things I've read here, and we have had our share of nonsensical takes in here.
Click to expand...
It’s mental gymnastics. It’s always mental gymnastics with these types who claim they’re objective or take no side but don’t have the balls to just admit they hate the Palestinian cause.
 
The Corinthian said:
It’s mental gymnastics. It’s always mental gymnastics with these types who claim they’re objective or take no side but don’t have the balls to just admit they hate the Palestinian cause.
Click to expand...

Yes, comparing one sneak attack that killed thousands to another sneak attack that killed thousands is mental gymnastics.
 
Kyonn said:
I'm not endorsing anything. I'm simply saying I in no way want to be a party to this conflict.
Click to expand...
I take it you were old enough to remember apartheid in South Africa. Was your stance then also the same? Would you have felt the same apathy if you were alive in Europe during the 1930s when the Nazis started their systemic persecution of European Jews?
 
Kyonn said:
I gave up on the idea of a two state solution not because I took Israel's side but because I realized by the late 90s that there was no two state solution that both side would agree to. I take no side in this.
Click to expand...

That is taking a side. Not only because it is what one of the side wants but also because it is the current status quo.

And I realize that you somehow didn't spot the fact that you took a side but you did and the sad part is that you didn't have to, as you suggested it doesn't affect your life, so nothing should compell you to give up for one side, you could just stick with what is right.
 
JPRouve said:
That is taking a side. Not only because it is what one of the side wants but also because it is the current status quo.

And I realize that you somehow didn't spot the fact that you took a side but you did and the sad part is that you didn't have to, as you suggested it doesn't affect your life, so nothing should compell you to give up for one side, you could just stick with what is right.
Click to expand...

Acoording to that logic it's impossible to be neutral in any conflict. Sorry I disagree. I support neither side.
 
Kyonn said:
Acoording to that logic it's impossible to be neutral in any conflict. Sorry I disagree. I support neither side.
Click to expand...
No it is perfectly possible to remain neutral in a conflict. It's just impossible to do so in this one.

It's quite straightforward, by not taking a side or refusing to hold a stance, you're doing precisely what the Israelis want, therefore inadvertently supporting a status quo which solely benefits them. All the Israelis need is apathy, not your explicit support.
 
Kyonn said:
But that's not a option that either of can take
Click to expand...

There's a difference between being unwilling and being incapable. You seem to be saying that the people between Hamas and Israel must either cede their land or cede their lives - ethnic cleansing or genocide. October 7th was utterly disgusting but pales in comparison to either proposition.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
There's a difference between being unwilling and being incapable. You seem to be saying that the people between Hamas and Israel must either cede their land or cede their lives - ethnic cleansing or genocide. October 7th was utterly disgusting but pales in comparison to either proposition.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is Israel and the Palestinians need to settle this themselves. Nothing can be forced from the outside. I would much prefer they would settle things peacefully but it's been obvious for decades that neither side is ready to do that.
 
Kaos said:
No it is perfectly possible to remain neutral in a conflict. It's just impossible to do so in this one.

It's quite straightforward, by not taking a side or refusing to hold a stance, you're doing precisely what the Israelis want, therefore inadvertently supporting a status quo which solely benefits them. All the Israelis need is apathy, not your explicit support.
Click to expand...

Why is this conflict different?
 
Badunk said:
From the BBC:

An Israeli military source says Israeli soldiers opened fire as some in the crowd moved towards them in a way that was "endangering the troops"
Israeli government spokesperson Avi Hyman has described what happened as a "tragedy" and said initial indications were that the deaths were caused by delivery trucks "ploughing into crowds of people" waiting for aid to be distributed
Meanwhile, an IDF statement said residents surrounded aid trucks prior to the incident and "looted supplies", and dozens were killed as a result of "pushing, trampling and being run over by the trucks"

All they ever do is murder, then lie about it, get caught out lying and then shrug their shoulders. Absolutely despicable cnuts of the highest order.
Click to expand...
The BBC need to take a biiig step back and feck their own faces. Disgusting organisation.
 
Kyonn said:
Acoording to that logic it's impossible to be neutral in any conflict. Sorry I disagree. I support neither side.
Click to expand...

You can't be neutral when you specifically give up on the rights of one side. In this particular case you would have to give up on the legitimacy of Israel. Otherwise you are neither neutral nor impartial.

The other option for neutrality is to defend the idea of a two state solution, to defend the rights of both side whether it is realistic or not. And it's easy for us to have that neutral position since we aren't affected on a day to day basis by the difficulty of said position.
 
Kyonn said:
What I'm saying is Israel and the Palestinians need to settle this themselves. Nothing can be forced from the outside. I would much prefer they would settle things peacefully but it's been obvious for decades that neither side is ready to do that.
Click to expand...

This entire conflict was forced from the outside.
 
JPRouve said:
You can't be neutral when you specifically give up on the rights of one side. In this particular case you would have to give up on the legitimacy of Israel. Otherwise you are neither neutral nor impartial.

The other option for neutrality is to defend the idea of a two state solution, to defend the rights of both side whether it is realistic or not. And it's easy for us to have that neutral position since we aren't affected on a day to day basis by the difficulty of said position.
Click to expand...

What right did I give? How am I capable of giving up another's rights?
 
Kyonn said:
Why is this conflict different?
Click to expand...
Because you have an assymetrical dynamic involving a powerful oppressor that relies on international apathy to carry out it's colonial aspirations, and a helpless, disenfranchised, defenceless native population who's only chance of survival is international pressure to curb the oppressor. You cannot hold a neutral stance when apathy clearly benefits the aggressor.

Like I've said before this is not a conventional 'conflict'.
 
Kyonn said:
What I'm saying is Israel and the Palestinians need to settle this themselves. Nothing can be forced from the outside. I would much prefer they would settle things peacefully but it's been obvious for decades that neither side is ready to do that.
Click to expand...

Have you heard of foreign policy? Did you know the US provides $3 billion to Israel annually in military aid? Are you familiar with the concept of leverage?
 
Kaos said:
Because you have an assymetrical dynamic involving a powerful oppressor that relies on international apathy to carry out it's colonial aspirations, and a helpless, disenfranchised, defenceless native population who's only chance of survival is international pressure to curb the oppressor. You cannot hold a neutral stance when apathy clearly benefits the aggressor.

Like I've said before this is not a conventional 'conflict'.
Click to expand...

Do you how many conflicts in the world are just as asymmetrical? China/Tibet, China/Uyghurs, US/Afghan, Russia/Ukraine... etc. Should take sides in all of them?
 
Kyonn said:
Yes it was, but that doesn't mean a solution can be forced from the outside.
Click to expand...
On the contrary it can only be solved from the outside.

What incentive does Israel have to stop occupying and ethnically cleansing Palestinians if it currently faces no ramifications or sanctions for doing so?

Likewise what incentive was there for the South African Praetorian government to end it's policy of apartheid if there was no international pressure?
 
Kyonn said:
Definitely not "cheerleadering". Not taking either side. I'm just old enough to have seen these two fight this out for way to long. I gave up on a Palestinian state back in the late 90s. There is zero good guys in this conflict.
Click to expand...
Kyonn said:
What right did I give? How am I capable of giving up another's rights?
Click to expand...

Be honest, are you trolling and wasting everyone time or you are serious and don't understand the topic? Your statement means that you gave up on palestinians right of self determination.
 
Mike Smalling said:
Have you heard of foreign policy? Did you know the US provides $3 billion to Israel annually in military aid? Are you familiar with the concept of leverage?
Click to expand...

Yep, Clinton used said leverage to broker a deal back in the 90s. Look how that turned out. Even if the US threatened to cut aid I still don't believe the Israel's would stop.
 
Kyonn said:
Yes it was, but that doesn't mean a solution can be forced from the outside.
Click to expand...

Of course it can, not only because the International community could recognize the existence of a Palestinian state and borders. They also could sanction Israel for the crimes committed against palestinians and observed by the UN for decades, they could avoid to finance and equip IDF.
 
Kaos said:
On the contrary it can only be solved from the outside.

What incentive does Israel have to stop occupying and ethnically cleansing Palestinians if it currently faces no ramifications or sanctions for doing so?

Likewise what incentive was there for the South African Praetorian government to end it's policy of apartheid if there was no international pressure?
Click to expand...

I don't believe either side will accept a solution forced form the outside. Not long term. It's been tried for litterly decades. But I guess reasonable people can disagree.
 
Kyonn said:
Do you how many conflicts in the world are just as asymmetrical? China/Tibet, China/Uyghurs, US/Afghan, Russia/Ukraine... etc. Should take sides in all of them?
Click to expand...
You're telling me you don't hold any position on any of those conflicts?

It's not really a valid comparison considering the UK and US aren't publicly supporting or funding/arming any of the aggressors in most those listed examples. In the case of the US/Afghan work it's quite clearly a different situation to the Palestinian one.
 
Kyonn said:
What I'm saying is Israel and the Palestinians need to settle this themselves. Nothing can be forced from the outside. I would much prefer they would settle things peacefully but it's been obvious for decades that neither side is ready to do that.
Click to expand...

Que sera sera...
 
Kyonn said:
Definitely not "cheerleadering". Not taking either side. I'm just old enough to have seen these two fight this out for way to long. I gave up on a Palestinian state back in the late 90s. There is zero good guys in this conflict.
Click to expand...
So, the 13000 dead children are bad guys?
 
JPRouve said:
Be honest, are you trolling and wasting everyone time or you are serious and don't understand the topic? Your statement means that you gave up on palestinians right of self determination.
Click to expand...

Believe what you will. I'm not capable of giving up another's right. Just stating my opinion that I no longer believe a two state solution is possible. Not saying it shouldn't happen just that I believe it won't.
 
Kyonn said:
Yep, Clinton used said leverage to broker a deal back in the 90s. Look how that turned out. Even if the US threatened to cut aid I still don't believe the Israel's would stop.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well that would be when to escalate then. They could then actually follow up on the threat if Israel didn't comply and cut the aid. Or they could impose sanctions.

If the US was serious about this, they would have started this process long ago. But Biden is a Zionist (by his own admission), and Netanyahu is playing him like a fiddle. The reluctance of the US to actually do what's right is the reason international pressure is not playing a role in coming to a solution.
 
Kyonn said:
Believe what you will. I'm not capable of giving up another's right. Just stating my opinion that I no longer believe a two state solution is possible. Not saying it shouldn't happen just that I believe it won't.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, considering your 'neutral' stance, if Israel were to succeed with their goals of ethnically cleansing or genociding the Palestinians, and then proceeding to successfully homogenise and colonise the entire territory. Would you accept that reality? Or would you display an iota of regret for having maintained a muted stance while it was unfolding?
 
Mike Smalling said:
Yeah, well that would be when to escalate then. They could then actually follow up on the threat if Israel didn't comply and cut the aid. Or they could impose sanctions.

If the US was serious about this, they would have started this process long ago. But Biden is a Zionist (by his own admission), and Netanyahu is playing him like a fiddle. The reluctance of the US to actually do what's right is the reason international pressure is not playing a role in coming to a solution.
Click to expand...

Yeah long ago like when Carter broke red a deal in 70s or Clinton in the 90s?
 
Kyonn said:
I gave up on the idea of a two state solution not because I took Israel's side but because I realized by the late 90s that there was no two state solution that both side would agree to. I take no side in this.
Click to expand...
But you didn't give up on the Israeli state? That means you support Israel.
 
Kaos said:
Out of interest, considering your 'neutral' stance, if Israel were to succeed with their goals of ethnically cleansing or genociding the Palestinians, and then proceeding to successfully homogenise and colonise the entire territory. Would you accept that reality? Or would you display an iota of regret for having maintained a muted stance while it was unfolding?
Click to expand...

The problem is I don't accept your premise. I don't Israel when commit genocide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.