Palestine

[FrustratedFool]

I don't have a choice but to think what I think. Feel free to try and change my mind, if it matters to you.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I don't have a choice but to think what I think.  Feel free to try and change my mind, if it matters to you.

It doesn’t.

Boru

[FrustratedFool]

Cool

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm glad we've dispensed with the idea that you base your opinions on feelings, or which states are secular. Isreal isn't a secular state, but what's actually important is to prevent the creation of a genocidal state, or one committed to the destruction of some people. Many palestinians, ofc, believe that isreal is just such a state. What do you think? Are they on that side of the line with all the blatant war crimes and such you mentioned before, or just on the "good" side of the line, even so?

[FrustratedFool]

I'm not sure what you mean by dispensing with the idea that my opinions are based upon feelings ... ???

Israel seem to be committed to the preservation of Israel and it being secure, and they seem to believe that the existence of Gaza, in the forms that it would likely exist in at the current time, as a prosperous state runs somewhat counter to that (I tend to agree). Thus, ideally, I think they would like to see Gaza become absorbed into Israel and the population dispersed elsewhere, or failing that (which I suspect they realise is unrealistic), to have a ham-strung Gazan semi-state (as per the previous status-quo apartheid). They are willing to engage in barbarity and war crimes to accomplish this, though not too much for fear of provoking a wider conflict or losing international, especially American, support.

I think that's as good a situation as can be realistically expected, and also the least worst option of the realistic options available (in terms of meeting my personal desires).

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, that would definitely be a warcrime..though as you say, isreal might be willing to do a couple few.

I'm not sure how supporting a warcrime (or engaging in one) is in the best interests of the us or that it actually serves the goal of isreali security. Say they trail of tears all the palestinians. Problem solved?

[FrustratedFool]

What are you referring to as definitely being a warcrime?

[The Grand Nudger]

An isreali attempt at the mass displacement of palestinian civilians? Not that it matters that much if, as we both agree, the isreali government could be willing to do a little warcriming to secure some goal, ofc?

I'm still left wondering why or how that attempt, or a failure and resolution into continued apartheid conditions, is supposed to secure isreal or be in us interests. It's obviously not our position, at least at present, that it would be. It's not the official isreali position either....granted, it might be the position but they know better than to just say the quiet part out loud.

What does the us or isreal gain by doing this, or continuing to do what they have done, in your opinion? I mean, we're asking this, ultimately, because hamas attacked. Right? How does doing the thing that lead to hamas attack..or worse, prevent future attacks..or worse?

[FrustratedFool]

I said they desired that.

Desiring is not a warcrime.

Also, even if they attempted it, wouldn't the method make a huge difference as to whether it was a warcrime or not? I mean, if they just asked and all the Palestinians just agreed, that's not a crime, is it?

That aside, I agree, they are willing to commit warcrimes they can get away with regardless.

Having the status quo doesn't result in a wider conflict (short term worse), nor allows for the formation of a powerful enemy neighbour (long term worse), I think. So I can't see a better alternative.

[The Grand Nudger]

I said they desired that.

Desiring is not a warcrime.

Also, even if they attempted it, wouldn't the method make a huge difference as to whether it was a warcrime or not?  I mean, if they just asked and all the Palestinians just agreed, that's not a crime, is it?

Like how we asked the natives to leave and they agreed?  Reality based conversations my guy.  No, it doesn't matter how someone warcrimes to the question of whether they did warcrime - and every war criminal has some sob story or pretense to decency in their act.  Like, yeah, we marched em all off, but I did give them my blanket! Look, when me and my boys showed up they all peaceably agreed to go where we pointed with our rifles.

That aside, I agree, they are willing to commit warcrimes they can get away with regardless.

Having the status quo doesn't result in a wider conflict (short term worse), nor allows for the formation of a powerful enemy neighbour (long term worse), I think.  So I can't see a better alternative.

Isn't the status quo what already lead to the escalation we're now discussing?

I just feel the need to circle back here. You get that the status quo is to feed the islamists and starve the secularists while kettling the palestinians in, right?