Sunni Islam and Shia Islam Together Again…And Against Us!

[UnseenParticipant]

It always helps to see any dispute from both sides. Here a journalist familiar with Middle Eastern politics explains the ignorance of viewing the recent Hamas attack on Israel as “unprovoked”:

https://www.youtube.com/live/vKyFuFgERe8?si=ZVP4K3Me2nTUiEul&t=3398

[DavisModerator]

I haven’t watched the video (sorry it is way too long). I simply don’t see any massacre of civilians as being justifiably provoked. There is always the option of military targets.

If you start justifying murdering civilians per being provoked, you could justify the Israeli army’s current daily murdering of totally innocent bystanders in their completely reckless “collateral damage” as provoked. Neither are. Both what Hamas did and Israel’s brutal pointless and easily avoided murder of innocents in their utter “collateral damage rampage” in Gaza, are totally utterly unjustifiable.

• This reply was modified 10 months, 3 weeks ago by  Davis.
• This reply was modified 10 months, 3 weeks ago by  Davis.

[_Robert_Participant]

Davis wrote:

I haven’t watched the video (sorry it is way too long). I simply don’t see any massacre of civilians as being justifiably provoked. There is always the option of military targets. If you start justifying murdering civilians per being provoked, you could justify the Israeli army’s current daily murdering of totally innocent bystanders in their completely reckless “collateral damage” as provoked. Neither are. Both what Hamas did and Israel’s brutal pointless and easily avoided murder of innocents in their utter “collateral damage rampage” in Gaza, are totally utterly unjustifiable.

This “innocent civilian” thing is nonsense, as if civilians bear no responsibility for their leaders. Millions of Germans, Italians and Japanese “civilians” paid the price for their poor fascist choices and greed. No difference. If Hamas is launching rockets from my backyard, shame on me, I deserve what I get. Plus, what is an Israeli soldier but a conscripted civilian. Is he or she no longer “innocent” for obeying the law. As I said before, if the Palestinians had any brains, they would opt for peaceful rebellion and a 2-state solution. But no; their religion will not allow for that. If people would only look at the lessons of history about what will happen to you when you allow authoritarians to run your show.

[DavisModerator]

Robert, your casual inhumanity towards civilians is really sickening. If it was wrong for militants to indiscriminately attack Israeli civilians, it is wrong for Israel to murder over a thousand civilians in anything but precision attacks against militants. It was wrong to firebomb Germans in Dresden, it was wrong to nuke Japan twice and it was wrong for Al Qaida to blow up the World Trade centre. There is no getting around justifying the murder of civilians. If you cast your net beyond combatants, you have zero moral high ground and whatever you do is in the same category of unjust as your opponent. It is the ultimate slippery slope. In any case, by any meaningful definition, a baby in a crib is an innocent party to any conflict. Or are they responsible for what Hamas does too? Seriously.

Dehumanising people, is the very thing that led to massacres, genocides, slavery and the worst of human misery. Perhaps, reconsider your eagerness to so thoroughly dehumanise people on the side of a conflict you do not support. Seriously.

• This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by  Davis.

[UnseenParticipant]

Davis wrote:

I haven’t watched the video (sorry it is way too long). I simply don’t see any massacre of civilians as being justifiably provoked. There is always the option of military targets.

I’m sorry. I set the video to start at the relevant point, 56:38. I should have explained, but I just learned how to do that when I saw PopeBeanie do it.l

[UnseenParticipant]

NOTE TO EVERYONE: In the link above, which goes to a long video, I did set the video to begin at a point 56:38 in. So, if you want to view a journalist familiar with the situation explain that the Gaza attack by Hamas was “unprovoked” only in a short-term view, then go ahead. I can’t make you look, but it could be helpful in understanding the Palestinian point of view on provocation.

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

This “innocent civilian” thing is nonsense, as if civilians bear no responsibility for their leaders. Millions of Germans, Italians and Japanese “civilians” paid the price for their poor fascist choices and greed. No difference. If Hamas is launching rockets from my backyard, shame on me, I deserve what I get.

What of the ethics of those who fled Germany during the rise of the Nazis. Was it unethical of them to flee rather than stay to fight or at least resist? Here are some who took the “I’m outta here. You guys deal with Hitler” approach:

Albert Einstein: The renowned physicist and Nobel laureate left Germany in 1933 when Adolf Hitler came to power. He settled in the United States and became a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.

Thomas Mann: The famous German writer and Nobel laureate, known for works like “Buddenbrooks” and “The Magic Mountain,” left Germany in 1933 due to his opposition to the Nazi regime. He lived in exile in various countries, including the United States.

Marlene Dietrich: The iconic actress and singer left Germany in the early 1930s and became an American citizen. She is known for her roles in films like “The Blue Angel” and “Morocco.”

Bertolt Brecht: The playwright and poet, best known for his works like “Mother Courage and Her Children” and “The Threepenny Opera,” left Germany in 1933 and spent many years in exile.

Hannah Arendt: The political theorist and philosopher fled Germany in the 1930s and later became a prominent thinker in the United States, known for her work on totalitarianism and the banality of evil.

Fritz Lang: The director of iconic films like “Metropolis” and “M,” Lang emigrated from Germany in the early 1930s and continued his career in Hollywood.

Max Ernst: The surrealist artist left Germany for France in the 1930s and later moved to the United States during World War II.

As I said before, if the Palestinians had any brains, they would opt for peaceful rebellion and a 2-state solution. But no; their religion will not allow for that. If people would only look at the lessons of history about what will happen to you when you allow authoritarians to run your show.

So, you think that in a similar situation, say one where European Muslims were brought in and it was the Jews who were shuffled around like they didn’t matte to make room for them, it would be the Jews who should see the wisdom of being treated like their rights don’t matter? Makes no sense to me.

In such a situation, who would you call the “authoritarians”?

[_Robert_Participant]

Those educated thinkers who fled Germany helped other countries begin to become aware of what was going on. The typical German who stayed was thinking about their VW, and eyeing a vacation home on the Vichy Riviera and looking the other way when convenient, or worse, helping the Riech do its ugly work.

How far do we go back if you wanna play who was there first? The Arabs loose that argument as they chased away the Jews (and Christians) several times and even built a Mosque right on top of the Jewish Temple. They were like 3600 years late, LOL. Are we also going to also pretend there isn’t space for a 2-state solution?

Sadat had become the personification of evil, because he had made peace with Israel. He had to die. Pathetic.

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

How far do we go back if you wanna play who was there first? The Arabs loose that argument as they chased away the Jews (and Christians) several times and even built a Mosque right on top of the Jewish Temple. They were like 3600 years late, LOL. Are we also going to also pretend there isn’t space for a 2-state solution?

A “solution” is one agreeable and also fair to both parties. But what’s agreeable will inevitably involve what the Palestinians (and much of the Middle East as well) perceives to be fair. (Fairness is widely accepted as how one defines justice.)

What’s “fair” about the so-called 2-state solution? Or is it like the original UN-imposed situation, just an outsider’s notion of what’s fair?

[UnseenParticipant]

Even corporate media news host Wolf Blitzer (who is Jewish) is shocked at how little regard the IDF feels about killing many Palestinian civilians in order to get one Hamas leader in the area which, BTW, the Israeli government told the Palestinians to run to for their own safety!

[_Robert_Participant]

Unseen wrote:

A “solution” is one agreeable and also fair to both parties. But what’s agreeable will inevitably involve what the Palestinians (and much of the Middle East as well) perceives to be fair. (Fairness is widely accepted as how one defines justice.)

What’s “fair” about the so-called 2-state solution? Or is it like the original UN-imposed situation, just an outsider’s notion of what’s fair?

So, you advocate for the destruction of Israel in favor of the Jihadist’s cause. Awesome.

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

So, you advocate for the destruction of Israel in favor of the Jihadist’s cause. Awesome

Are the Israelis in favor of the 2-state solution? No.

Are the Palestinians pining for a 2-state solution? No. But it doesn’t matter because nobody gives a flying fuck WHAT they think. Certainly not the American government which is almost velcroed to Israel at the hip because of the political umph of the evangelical right.

Realistically, who wants the 2-state solution? Outsiders. Problem: That’s exactly how this clusterfuck started in the first place.

lsrael is going down a road in responding to Hamas that guarantees eternal war in the area because the more brutal they are in pursuing Hamas, the more future recruits Hamas can count on.

But let’s imagine a 2-state solution where we outisers in the form of the UN force the Jews into Gaza, the new Jewish state which the UN will name “New Israel,” and the Palestinians into  the country formerly called Israel, which is now named “Palestine.”

There’s your two-state solution done the only way it’s ever going to happen, by which I mean forced on the relevant parties by an outside power.

Satisfactory?

• This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by  Unseen.
• This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by  Unseen.

[—Participant]

Unseen wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

So, you advocate for the destruction of Israel in favor of the Jihadist’s cause. Awesome

Are the Israelis in favor of the 2-state solution? No. Are the Palestinians pining for a 2-state solution? No.

Support waxes and wanes, but there are times where both Palestinians and Israelis showed majority support for a two-party solution using the 1967 territories. There are always going to be hardliners who will never accept it, but I suspect the biggest variable for many isn’t about acceptance that the territory may very be whole again, but rather the ability to believe the other side can be trusted. Even in a two-state paradigm, extremists and hardliners won’t vanish overnight. It would take generations. If the peace can be absolutely shattered by the acts of an aggressive minority, it can’t exist.

[—Participant]

Autumn wrote:

Support waxes and wanes, but there are times where both Palestinians and Israelis showed majority support for a two-party solution…

two-state*
Nearly every dang time I type ‘two party’ when I mean two-state.

[UnseenParticipant]

Autumn wrote:

Support waxes and wanes, but there are times where both Palestinians and Israelis showed majority support for a two-party solution using the 1967 territories.

I suspect the time for that has passed. We’re probably now in an approach-avoidance dilemma wherein if the Israelis were to move in favor of it, the Palestinians would oppose it and vice versa.

Besides, the devil’s in the details as they say. What NOWADAYS (it’s not longer 1967) would satisfy both parties enough to result in signing on the dotted line?

[Author]

Posts