This shithead’s genocide is going to birth a new generation of vengeful extremists out of the ashes of Gaza for the rest of the world to deal with, in the future
The onion had ‘news from the future’ from several years ago and showed the last Israeli fighting the last Palestinian over a stray cat that wandered into the Gaza scrap
By design. Fascists need an enemy to protect people from, in order to justify their cruelty. And they need a underclass to oppress, to demonstrate their power.
If they can make one out of the other - why, that’s just efficiency.
I'm thinking these days. The problem with democracy is that it can't be forced even if it were the correct thing to do in the pragmatic sense. If you force it, it's not democracy.
It's Western democracies that tamed Middle Eastern countries to make sure they're always on Israel's side, or at least effectively neutral. You can see it from Saudi Arabia's weapons and war in Yemen to Egypt's aid; the US spends a lot of money and political capital to buy the Middle East's cooperation in Israel's Apartheid/genocide project. And if that wasn't enough, they deployed strike carriers to make sure nobody intervenes militarily.
Saudi Arabia and the Arab world could ban the sale of oil and see biden prostrate, nobody gives a fuck about them because you can’t make money from them and being a religious minority (in the west at-least) is the icing on the cake, not to say they care about their religious brothers, it was never a reason for anything other than oppression of people they don’t like.
Saudi Arabia and the Arab world could ban the sale of oil and see biden prostrate
Like I said above, most Middle Eastern governments who aren't aligned with Iran have been tamed by the US using both carrots and sticks. Saudi Arabia wants their weapons, Egypt wants its aid, etc etc.
So he’s finally admitted it. I’m guessing there will be silence from the people that said Israel was definitely going to give Gaza back to Palestine after Hamas was gone.
Of course he says this, all of his actions for the last thirty years have telegraphed this intent. War is how he stays in power, and he takes it personally.
No, waging a war of conquest is a fundamental right of any sovereign state. That doesn’t bear directly on a question as to the prosecution of a genocide.
Chin up. Just because it’s the right of a nationstate doesn’t mean it’s accepted. Wars of conquest have been almost universally denounced in the post-WW2 period. Treaties and mutual-defense agreements have been structured in the post-war period to forestall any such wars and have largely proven successful at doing so.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
UN Charter doesn’t abridge the natural rights of sovereigns. The UN Charter is also not a binding document apart from governing the internal workings of the United Nations. Maybe make sure you know anything about a topic before making yourself look foolish.
What the fuck are you on about the charter is absolutely legally binding, and binds nations to decisions of the Security Council which has repeatedly stated that wars of conquest are illegal.
My point is, sovereign states are things we made up while “fundamental rights” are things that apparently are just properties of those things that we didn’t add.
It’s all just bullshit trying to justify power hungry assholes wanting to increase their web of influence (over people who don’t want to follow them) to the people whose lives and well-being they need to risk to extend their power.
And yeah, evidently there isn’t anything to discuss if you can only reply to a specific question with a link to a lecture series about the broad topic. Though I know you dodged the question because you can’t use logic to get to that point, you either believe in “fundamental rights” or you don’t and picking at that thread is more likely to lose support than to gain it because the right you are arguing for essentially says states have the right to go kill people in neighbouring states if they want to take them over, which was largely rejected after WWI and even more so after WWII when the colonial empires started realizing “hey maybe it’s not ok to rule all these other countries for our own benefit”.
This comment isn’t for you anyways. It’s for people who read what you said and got a feeling of, “this doesn’t sound right” but weren’t able to put their finger on exactly why.
The article admits in the first paragraph that it’s a possible mistranslation. If you’ve been following the rhetoric then you know this is not a new stance, it is a reiteration of the existing question of what body will administer Gaza after the war. Biden has said that the PA should be “revitalized” and assume control of Gaza. Netanyahu has said that the PA lacks the capability, credibility, and capacity to do so. As far as credibility, it’s hard to imagine that Israel is the better option. The idea that Netanyahu is better than the admittedly unpopular Abbas is risible.
Egypt has flat out refused to take on the job, the Arab league has floundered.
It seems like the best solution would be a UN transitional force that would rebuild Gaza with financial support from Qatar and UAE, who have expressedwillingness. They would be responsible for maintaining order following the power vacuum of removing Hamas, PIJ, etc. They would have to bolster the PA, establish a police force, systems of governance, and roll out the transition for a peaceful transition of power to the PA (or a newly created body).
That’s no small task. The last thing anyone wants is another Afghanistan. The USA spent decades and billions of dollars to remove the Taliban and establish a democratic system. They finally admitted that it hadn’t worked and handed everything back over to the Taliban.
That’s not the significant part of the mistranslation, however. This article says that “Israel will take over the entire region” but the more accurate translation is “Israel must have security in the region.”
This article is using the most shocking possible translation just to get clicks.
He’s made it very clear he means to create that security by annexing it all. The article does provide the alternate translations. They do not help Netanyahu’s case.
That’s seems like an awful lot for a tiny little spit of land that basically affects fewer people than any medium sized American city. I think Israel has the superior claim, arguably a duty.
On the other hand, imagine the efforts that the world would go to to free a medium sized American city that was taken captured by terrorists and rebuild it afterword.
Israel may be the best equipped to maintain order, and they have an existential prerogative to do so. However, what does the eventual transfer of power look like in that scenario? The PA and the UN are maybe the only bodies with the credibility to manage and rebuild the area and form a stable and representative government.
I’m willing to bet there will never be any kind of voluntary transfer of power.
I firmly expect that Israel’s intention is to drive out the Palestinian population and annex Gaza once and for all. Nothing else explains their strategy of mass infrastructure destruction, the regular bombing of civilians, and the regular drumbeat of suggestions of foreign nations like Canada taking in Palestinian refugees. They’re clearly attempting to render Gaza utterly unlivable.
I mean, what else could possibly be their endgame given the level of destruction Israel has engaged in? A vibrant and functioning Gaza will never be tolerated by the Israeli far right (they literally just finally openly rejected a two state solution, though let’s face it, in practice that’s nothing new). Containment has failed. The only thing left is destruction.
I mean, what else could possibly be their endgame given the level of destruction Israel has engaged in? A vibrant and functioning Gaza will never be tolerated by the Israeli far right
It'll never be tolerated by Israel period. Let's not pretend the Israeli left and non-far right are innocent in this.
Obviously there are significant differences between the circumstances; whether there are leaders and partners on the ground we can work with, whether there is a nuclear power involved, being the significant differences that stand out to me.
I think the transfer of power looks like this: members and accomplices of Hamas are killed as enemy combatants and terrorists, infrastructure is repaired, goods and supplies flow, and and everyone is pretty glad to be rid of them and people who just want to live their lives go and do so, I hope as or at least with a path to full Israeli citizenship and democratic representation. Bibi and his loyalists are also going to need to be voted out by the Israeli people, part of that existential prerogative. Maybe pockets of residence will persist underground. They will be got though.
I think the transfer of power looks like this: members and accomplices of Hamas are killed as enemy combatants and terrorists, infrastructure is repaired, goods and supplies flow, and and everyone is pretty glad to be rid of them and people who just want to live their lives go and do so, I hope as or at least with a path to full Israeli citizenship and democratic representation.
If Israel was willing to do that Hamas wouldn't exist.
I disagree. The ideological opposition to a Jewish state is as old as Zionism itself and the violent opposition is as old as the state. In fact I think I recall some diplomat or another who was an early advocate for a Jewish state being assassinated for it. There was always a group of extreme, Islamic religious fundamentalists who violently opposed a Jewish state. At any rate, time is linear and we are here now.
And luckily for everyone, Israel is a democracy and therefore represents hope for change and a more just future.
The ideological opposition to a Jewish state is as old as Zionism itself and the violent opposition is as old as the state.
I mean yes. Why wouldn't they oppose a Jewish state? "Hey we'll steal your land and build an Apartheid state on it" did you want them to agree to that?
Add comment