Jump to content

Daeron the Daring

Members
  • Posts

    1,530
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Daeron the Daring

  1. Not necesarilly. Israel is way too deep into Gaza. If they wanted to dismantle the settlements they supported and armed there, it would be a blood bath, like someone said before. The existence of the settlements is one of the main reasons behind a one-state solution, which would not require the dismantlement of settlements (because of freedom of movement for everybody). However, it's way too unthinkable for Israeli leadership, because it would mean the absolute emancipation of palestinians, responsibility taken for the citizens of Gaza, as well as the rebuilding of the place, a right to return, and a creation of a (truly) secular multiethnic democratic state without apartheid. The two-state solution, in contrast, is essentially meant to divide the palestinians at this point, as well as creating more violence.
  2. Noo, you can't just put the actions of a single legal entity in the same bag. That's almost like the same people decide to do both, and that would mean the two issues would fall under the same (or at least similar) policies and patterns it operates with, which is clearly not true, because that would mean bad bad things.
  3. In a scenario when Israel intends to continue it's ongoing policy regarding palestinians, it's directly beneficial for them, because they have been cracking down on less violent and (much) more reasonable liberation movements, all the while propping up radical movements, to have the public not see a ground of cooperation to reconciliate. The dehumanization didn't start with October 7 or Hamas.
  4. Man,the israelis really want peace, but you can't have it with palestinians, you know how they are.
  5. Don't like 80% of West Bank palestinians see the their leadership as a mere extension of Israeli authority/interests, who haven't been fairhfully representing their interests for a long time now? It's easy to see why, and it's hard to see how Israel could make anything different for gazans.
  6. You miss the point. Hamas is the ethanol here. You're better than them, you get the pass.
  7. I am yet to see someone actually say that here. I think all opinions have ranged between that the military intervention is a must (and that Israel is doing just what he must) and that it shouldn't happen, because it won't make Hamas go away, just strenghten the grievances,or at best lays ground for another terrorist organization to take over. Even with your expressed stance, you just can't compare those to Hasan. That you seriously group these people's validity to his shows how much you're ignorant or intentionally misleading. Yea, sure. Let's say you have a fair reason an opinion to hold that stance. Let's even say he is nothing but professional. But then why the hell would you yourself discredit the studies of UN approved NGOs and social studies who do say Israel is excercising genocide? Like bro, you literally told me (it was like the first or second thread when there was a discussion abiut this) they are not fucking trustworthy. They are professionals by any human merit. The only small objection one can have is that these orgs and studies come from places (countries) that don't align themselves geopolitically with Israel. Which to me raises the (poetic) question of why there isn't pressure from Western countries to have legal bodies take investigations on these matters. Countries who do geopolitically allign themselves to Israel.
  8. There we go. IDF has the moral superiority over all militaries, ever.
  9. So everybody using certain social media platforms have no validity to their opinions, maybe because the nature of the content shared there? I guess we should all stop having conversations and threads, because why could or should anybody share any of their views on a page dedicated primarily for discussing fantasy novels, if a streaming platform is not good enough of a place to share your professional opinion. No, you pardon me for thinking anybody would care about it, because people clearly don't give a fuck about what others think. Nobody's here to change their minds, we're just not that way. You can bet your life's savings it will be the first thing I'll mention them if I meet just a single Hamas leader (residing in Doha or Hell itself), but I was engaged in a conversation with you.
  10. It's interesting of you to say that, first because of your complete dismissal of his professional status as someone with a degree in communication studies and political science as well (which makes him more than relevant to form a professional opinion about the matter, certainly at least as relevant as any journalist or politician), but also because you make the assumption that this is my single source of information, altough he himself can give an insightful view on numerous subjects along with giving a platform to many professional voices, which I deem to be more than sufficient for your average citizen. But I'm maybe at fault for expecting anything of you at this point (not that I had a specific target audience when I made the decision to share the video here), but an attempt of discrediting anyone (be it fucking legal bodies and professionals of any quantity) with a heavy criticism over Israel's recent actions. Maybe a decent level of exposure would be to go to Gaza, so that you can finally grasp (at least a fraction) of what the people there have to go trough, and you can finally start realising that they don't owe Israel their fucking life, or anything else of any capacity. I think you're in a slighly larger need of that than me.
  11. How about we give them the chance to choose between wether they want to be bombed for their freedom (Israel seems to have made itself the deliverer of it, according to you) or not? It's a long stretch to assume palestinians want to happen what's currently happening, even with the supposed (but absolutely not and nowhere near guaranteed) positive outcomes. It's even more outlandish to think that Israel is doing this for the sake of the gazans. They do it for security reasons, and I'm pretty sure there are options to achieving that with less civilian casualties. I mean, is every country on Earth with a militarily threatening neighbour engaging in open warfare? It doesn't seem to me that way.
  12. Being in support or in radical support of something are different. The supporters of Hamas are radical, and it's Hamas' absolute priority to marginalize it's political opposition. There are things I support, and there are things I would (maybe) die for. Everybody excercises different levels of importance, and it comes naturally that gazans have much more important things to worry about than who they are represented. And on top of that, it's not like they have any reason to believe cooperation with Israel has all that many benefits. Sure, it's important to note that Hamas are not only authoritarian, but opressors too to many. In light of that, of course the majority would like a change, but that doesn't mean they tie their (current and past) situation to Hamas, and not Israel. Even if they do, I'd say very disproportionately.
  13. I think, beyond the fact that Gazans are extremely radicalised for obvious reasons (which does give clout or a level of justification for Hamas' actions to the gazans), it's debatable even from an objective point of view if Hamas is a bigger existential threat to them than the actions of Israel. Expecting them to reach or share that viewpoint on a large enough scale to achieve anything (positive and significant) is similar in possibility to expecting God to descend down to Earth and make everything alright. (I'd say more people believe globally in the possibility of the latter)
  14. I mean, I personally don't, but many people see the possibility of Petyr trying to push things that far. The reason I mentioned it was because it is quite common for people to think Petyr wants just that. In no way I meant to imply that Sansa can put no pressure on the course of events affecting her, particularly this possible one.
  15. And then you said: Anyway. Another thing to learn more about. Good night!
  16. And still, they are not the same thing. I am an ethnic hungarian, and part of the romanian nation, as a minority born and living in the country of Romania as a full-right romanian citizen. I cannot identify as an ethnic romanian, because I couldn't even prove to be one as far as my ancestor's legal records go back. I mean, I could, I'm allowed to, but that doesn't change reality. They are never the same thing, because an entirely homogenous country on planet Earth does not exist. No, it shows that I am aware of the actual meaning of the word. The ethnic romanians that dream of an actual nation state in my country call for entire assimilation or revocation of citizenship in case of its minorities, because their ideal Romania is a state only for romanians that identify as ethnic romanians. (Look up AUR So when there are people who actually use the term in its actual meaning, you shouldn't be, because you are the one with the fantasy that the term in its original meaning means nothing to noone. I wouldn't go as far as saying that racial segregation or treatment of minorities as second-grade citizens is a standard that countries you classify as nation states (particularly) in Europe use as a norm within its own borders. Edit: On the other hand thou, don't worry, I condemn the neo-colonialism/imperialism that european/'western' countries exercise outside their borders to this day, including that of Israel. It's rich of you to think that, but even richer is to think that this makes anything right or justifiable. Maybe educate yourself then, so that you can arrive to a realization that there are people everywhere, actually believing in the righteousness of the real concepts of nation-states and ethnostates, and you shouldn't be using those terms to express something different.
  17. An ethnostate: a sovereign state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group. A nation-state:A nation-state is a political unit where the state, a centralized political organization ruling over a population within a territory, and the nation, a community based on a common identity, are congruent. I think you made the mistake of thinking an ethnostate is the equivalent of a nation-state. Furthermore, there's not a single country on Earth that's actually a nation-state, aka has an entirely homogenous population. There are very homogenous countries in Europe, yes, but they also have a very heavy reason why they are that way, on almost every occasion. Some countries do get called a nation-state (or self-proclaim as such), though, but in the sense that "this is the country that's composed of the homelands (or parts of it) of this nation". But not exclusively, of course, since certain regions cannot be recognized as a homeland of a single nation/ethnicity. (Altough that's something that far-right thinkers actively try to push for)
  18. Well, it's hard to not have more antisemitism, when the tought of Israel/israelis lands in much more people's minds than usually, because of the ongoing conflict. In that fashion, more people express antisemitism towards palestinians as well. But that is true in all situations. Where I live, calling someone ukrainian or russian had become a curseword because of the war. Calling someone a jew had never stopped being one. What I referred to was the shift in the popularity of social trends towards a more xenophobic/discriminatory attitude over the past years. On top of people becoming more and more polarized, more people shift towards the political right as well. What I'm saying is that antisemitism had been growing for a long time, regardless of the current situation, which obviously does create a 'spike' on a hypothetical graph that measures just that.
  19. Maybe that has to do with the political scale shifting more and more towards the right these days on a global scale?
  20. You're free to do so. Class struggle is the most important conflict of our age.
  21. Well, to be fair, it was on me too for doubling down on this (pointless) debate. However, the original point made was "How can palestinians be a subject of genocide while growing in numbers?", and not wether the actions of Israel in the past weeks is genocide or not.
  22. I'm guessing we shouldn't even be allowed to use the term for actual situations then, because people get triggered by the word? That genocide can mean much worse things as well doesn't make a lighter version of it not that. And the Holocaust doesn't disqualify the term from moving on a spectrum. I admit, you're right. The word does have a reputation, and it does have an ability to trigger people, hence why it can be impedimental to a conversation, but that doesn't make the usage of it incorrect. it was baiting from my side, but I didn't mean it to be that way. Misrepresenting the meaning of the word is a wrong stance though, just as discrediting the opinion of people who's job is it to arbitrate wether it is genocide or not we're talking about.
  23. I have not. Or maybe, I did, consciously. The original point the post I answered to claimed genocide has not happened (and continues not to happen) because the population of gaza is a growing number. Debating wether the atrocities are severe enough to get labeled as genocide won't be something I'll do, I simply reflected on what I percieve as a fact that the severety of actions doesn't draw a line that would make anything genocidal not genocide. Good for you if you think Israel's treatment of Gaza haven't met the requirements of genocide.
×
×
  • Create New...