If you only criticize civilian casualties when Palestine resists, then your concern isn't civilian casualties. Your concern is Palestine resisting massacre.
If you only criticize civilian casualties when Palestine resists, then your concern isn't civilian casualties. Your concern is Palestine resisting massacre.
This meme is from 2004. History repeats itself.
You're viewing a single thread.
both sides are stupid. youd think after all these years of fighting a compromise could be found, but NO, they just always fight. gives me the feeling that they dont want it any other way.
There's many Palestinians in Israeli territory right now. If they were willing to compromise, they wouldn't be brutalizing them weekly, gassing them in places of prayer and stripping away their rights.
One of my best friends has a whole bunch of Israeli cousins that I'm friendly with when they've visited the states. According to them, a lot of Israeli people have a lot of Palestinian friends and vice versa, especially the younger generations, it's primarily the Israeli government and Hamas that keep this shit going. Most of the average people don't take issue with each other outside of extremists and nationalists on either side, they'd rather just all get along. They say the issue tends to lie with governing authority over holy sites, that Israel is trying to be the big kid on the block in the region, and the Palestinians just want to live in peace with equal rights and to not be treated as substandard citizens on their own land and are rightfully pissed that they keep getting pushed around.
Of course, the issue is the Israeli state, not the Jewish people. There are even organizations in Israel fighting for Palestinian rights and against the Israeli state (and many get punished for it).
But unfortunately there are also many who support what is being done to Palestinians. But in the end, the Israeli state and military are the main entities to blame.
Who's "they", exactly? Certainly not the average Israeli or Palestinian.
I doubt that you will be swayed by facts, but just for the record: in 2000 Israel offered Hamas to become a fully sovereign nation on 100% of Gaza's territory (and 95% of the West Bank) with East Jerusalem as their capital. Hamas declined. In 2005 Israel voluntarily disengaged from Gaza and enabled self-rule, hoping this would be a step towards peace. It wasn't. In 2011 there was another offer for a "two states for two peoples" solution, Hamas once again rejected it.
None of this is surprising since the Hamas is a fanatic Muslim group following the most militant tenets of Islam. Their publicly-stated charter is to utterly destroy Israel ("drive the jews into the sea") and create a Muslim nation on the entire area of Palestine. So anything less than that is a non-starter. Any Jew left alive in Israel means that they haven't finished yet.
Note that there's nothing in the charter about the Palestinian people - The Hamas takes no civic or sovereign responsibility for the population which they govern. In other words, Hamas sees the Palestinian people as a consumable resource in their fight to bring Islam to 100% of the territory historically referred to as "Palestine". So building tunnels under schools and hospitals is allowed. Diverting humanitarian aid to the military infrastructure while the population starves is fine. Indoctrinating children from kindergarten about the glory of killing Jews is standard procedure. etc. Using the Gaza residents as human shields is valuable both for reducing Hamas casualties as well as increasing collateral damage which makes Israel "look bad" in the international community.
Compromise is difficult because when negotiating with someone who wants you dead, how do you meet them halfway ?
Why agree to this "compromise" when Israel violated the previous one?
Drive the vast majority of a population from their homes, and to a tiny strip of their former homeland, then "generously" offer them to just remain there in their little concentration camp. And not even guaranteed, given Israel's history. Gee, I wonder why they rejected?
It's not surprising that this is what occupiers think is "compromise".
If you know enough history to be familiar with the "previous ones" then you know that that they could have gotten half of Israel's territory in 1947 but instead they (the Arab nations) preferred to go to war to take it all. And they failed. And then again in 68, same story. BTW Israel has repeatedly offered to transfer control of Gaza to Egypt, the Egyptians have no interest in helping them out in any way. It's more expedient for all the Arab world that Gaza remains a festering sore in Israel's side - of course at the expense of the poor Palestinians who are stuck there. Even now, Egypt is unwilling to open it's border for Palestinians who wish to flee the area. But it's obviously more fashionable to blame Israel for creating a "concentration camp" even after all of that. No-other country in the region is willing to lift a finger to help them, yet you expect the most from the country which Gaza has sworn to destroy and attacks at every opportunity?
Israel already look horrible to anyone paying attention, the entire West is backing them
Go further back, even. The UN Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 would have given Palestine its own territory, splitting it with Israel 45/55. The Arab League and Arab Higher Committee of Palestine both rejected it.
It's not like compromises have never been offered. The Arabs have simply never been willing to accept anything less than the expulsion of the Jews from the territory.
From their perspective, someone just moved into their house one day and when they objected they said "let's compromise, you can keep half of the house." No wonder they rejected that compromise.
Unfortunately we're now a couple of generations past that initial event so it's a lot more complicated at this point.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think they "just moved in". They've lived there for a long time as well, but the former country of Palestine was quite divided ethnically, and that caused issues due to extremists (on both sides).
The purpose of splitting Palestine was to get two countries that were at least less divided ethnically, but due to where people lived Israel still remained quite evenly divided between muslims and jews whereas the new Palestine was close to 100% muslims.
Countries have been split all over the world before in somewhat similar manners without causing as big conflicts, showing that this could've been done in a peaceful manner. What went wrong here? I don't know.
At this rate they shall soon have no house at all. Constant terror attacks against an undefeatable enemy and an unwillingness to compromise will ensure it.
Just an addendum, the partition is based on the previous split of Transjordan Palestine after ww1, where there was a 80/20 split for the Arabs. With the Israeli getting most of Palestine.
Palestinians are not saying to expel Jews. They are saying to remove the ethnoreligious state, not the Jews themselves.
This was reiterated countless of times. They seek a Democratic state where Jews and non jews can be equal.
Sorry, I was wrong. They want to "obliterate" the Jews, not expel them. When talking about genocide, it's important to specify the correct flavor.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
Regardless, they have multiple times rejected concessions and compromises that would have enabled them to have an independent democratic nation. If that's truly what they wanted, why would they always pass on the opportunity to get it without bloodshed?
"hurr de durr, both sides"
What a giant load of crap
Gimme that good old fundamentalist religion
Have you ever heard the phrase, "you can't negotiate with terrorists?" Turns out it's true.
Didn't the United States consider the Taliban terrorists? Did that stop them from negotiating a retreat from Afghanistan? America sure seems to believe you can negotiate with terrorists.
Negotiate? They straight up support terrorists or conduct business with them for 'the greater good' or 'the big picture'.
What America considers "terrorists" are often the least problematic of their associations. Let's not forget how South Korea used to be ruled by a series of dictators, or the installation of Pinochet, or the South Vietnamese dictators.
The terrorists in that case managed to outlast a billion/trillion $ anti-terrorism budget, I don't think the US had much negotiating power or a choice to not negotiate in that case. Ironic considering how many times that it's been the other way around.
I mean, I guess you can try, but you're going to be dissapointed every single time. 10/10 don't recommend.