This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:28 am
I'm saying that nothing Hamas did "provoked" Israel into committing genocide, and if Hamas were magically wiped off the map today Israel would gleefully go on bombing the shit out of Palestine anyway.
I mean, yes. But that's like saying that if al-Qaeda were somehow wiped off the map in 2002 the US wouldn't continue the war on terror.
I suppose you could make the argument if there were no Hamas, then Israel wouldn't have attacked. That's probably true, but unlike the no 9/11, no GWoT argument, the powderkegs were already old and cracked by the time Hamas went on their rampage. If it wasn't that, it would be something else later.
What we should focus on is, "what can be done, now?"
"I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking 'Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!'" When I am writing in this font, I am writing in my moderator voice.
Spam-desu
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:28 am
I'm saying that nothing Hamas did "provoked" Israel into committing genocide, and if Hamas were magically wiped off the map today Israel would gleefully go on bombing the shit out of Palestine anyway.
I mean, yes. But that's like saying that if al-Qaeda were somehow wiped off the map in 2002 the US wouldn't continue the war on terror.
I suppose you could make the argument if there were no Hamas, then Israel wouldn't have attacked. That's probably true, but unlike the no 9/11, no GWoT argument, the powderkegs were already old and cracked by the time Hamas went on their rampage. If it wasn't that, it would be something else later.
What we should focus on is, "what can be done, now?"
Bad analogy. Focusing on Hamas at all is closer to "if the Lakota hadn't won Little Big Horn, then the US wouldn't have stolen so much of their land". Nonsense gibberish that only works if you pretend the aggressor in the conflict is people whose land has been systematically stolen for decades.
No mistake, Hamas are best understood as warlords, a de facto authority who maintain power by provoking external enemies, but Israel selected deliberately for Hamas for decades before they achieved that status by targeting more moderate politicians and factions in Gaza. The only way to be rid of them is to choke off their supply of fresh blood, and the only way to do THAT is for Israel to fucking stop. Stop the massacre, stop the occupation, stop the propaganda. Additional steps would be required to build a stable peace, but the first move has always solely remained Israel's.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:28 am
I'm saying that nothing Hamas did "provoked" Israel into committing genocide, and if Hamas were magically wiped off the map today Israel would gleefully go on bombing the shit out of Palestine anyway.
I mean, yes. But that's like saying that if al-Qaeda were somehow wiped off the map in 2002 the US wouldn't continue the war on terror.
I suppose you could make the argument if there were no Hamas, then Israel wouldn't have attacked. That's probably true, but unlike the no 9/11, no GWoT argument, the powderkegs were already old and cracked by the time Hamas went on their rampage. If it wasn't that, it would be something else later.
What we should focus on is, "what can be done, now?"
Bad analogy. Focusing on Hamas at all is closer to "if the Lakota hadn't won Little Big Horn, then the US wouldn't have stolen so much of their land". Nonsense gibberish that only works if you pretend the aggressor in the conflict is people whose land has been systematically stolen for decades.
I may have mistated my point, but it was more along the lines of, "If there were no attacks by Native Americans in Colorado in 1864, the Sand Creek massacre wouldn't have happened, but all the bad blood would have boiled over tosimilar deadly ends from some other inciting incident later."
"I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking 'Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!'" When I am writing in this font, I am writing in my moderator voice.
Spam-desu
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:28 am
I'm saying that nothing Hamas did "provoked" Israel into committing genocide, and if Hamas were magically wiped off the map today Israel would gleefully go on bombing the shit out of Palestine anyway.
I mean, yes. But that's like saying that if al-Qaeda were somehow wiped off the map in 2002 the US wouldn't continue the war on terror.
I suppose you could make the argument if there were no Hamas, then Israel wouldn't have attacked. That's probably true, but unlike the no 9/11, no GWoT argument, the powderkegs were already old and cracked by the time Hamas went on their rampage. If it wasn't that, it would be something else later.
What we should focus on is, "what can be done, now?"
Bad analogy. Focusing on Hamas at all is closer to "if the Lakota hadn't won Little Big Horn, then the US wouldn't have stolen so much of their land". Nonsense gibberish that only works if you pretend the aggressor in the conflict is people whose land has been systematically stolen for decades.
No mistake, Hamas are best understood as warlords, a de facto authority who maintain power by provoking external enemies, but Israel selected deliberately for Hamas for decades before they achieved that status by targeting more moderate politicians and factions in Gaza. The only way to be rid of them is to choke off their supply of fresh blood, and the only way to do THAT is for Israel to fucking stop. Stop the massacre, stop the occupation, stop the propaganda. Additional steps would be required to build a stable peace, but the first move has always solely remained Israel's.
And Israel has consistently side stepped the process by making all kinds of promises but never providing any kind of deadline so they never had any obligation to deliver on their promises.
Which seems odd to me because, where else would the hostages be held but in Gaza? Israel has taken a great many steps to make certain the people of Gaza can't get out, so where else would they be? The more they bomb the less likely they're going to get the hostages they're so mad about back.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 10:14 am
Well, yeah. At this point they've killed more hostages than they've rescued. But it was never about the hostages.
Oh I'm quite aware of that. If they'd not been taken I'm quite certain Netanyahu would've found another reason to bomb the crap out of Gaza.
Israel closely supervises aid to try to ensure it bypasses Hamas. But the Hamas-run government benefits from foreign countries footing the bill for schools, hospitals and infrastructure, allowing it to conserve its own resources, including the taxes and customs it collects.
If the region is in total ruins what taxes are they supposed to be collecting at this point?
