- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/post/590118
During a video address directed at the people of Lebanon, Netanyahu said: "You have an opportunity to save Lebanon before it falls into the abyss of a long war that will lead to destruction and suffering like we see in Gaza.
It’s mostly about preventing future hostages now
I don’t know how you think these things work but bombing half the Levant isn’t going to make Israel any safer. It just means Hamas and Hezbollah (or whatever group replaces them) will be even more extreme and capable of recruiting militants. You can’t bomb your way to peace.
Let me fuck my way to virginity.
It isn’t that they haven’t learned. It’s that they don’t care. They want to kill. They are what would happen if serial killers and mass murderers become world leaders.
Lots of countries that bombed/killed their way to peace would disagree
Allowing them to rebuild their forces to get a mere 100 hostages back will just lead to more death in the future
Israel isn’t fighting a country. It’s, at least ostensibly, fighting terrorism and every civilian killed radicalizes someone. Israel will be less secure in the future because of how Netanyahu has conducted the war in Gaza, not to mention how he’s given settlers — who are terrorists themselves — free rein to steal land and attack West Bank Palestinians. (I say “ostensibly” because Gaza looks a lot more like a genocide than any sort of limited mission to crush Hamas and rescue hostages.)
Unfortunately, I don’t see Netanyahu’s strategy making Israel more secure in the long term.
The irony is that the hostages are safer with hamas. The Israelis are confirmed to have killed hundreds of their own citizens as part of rhe Hannibal doctrine on Oct 7th and have killed hostages in bombing raids.
They’re fighting Arab-islamic nationalists who won’t ever give up their fight over Palestine.
Morocco crushed the resistance in Western Sahara and took their territory. Now there’s peace.
Azerbaijan crushed the resistance in Nagorno-Kharabach and took their territory. Now there’s peace.
It’s not pretty, but sometimes it’s ‘better’ overall than letting an armed conflict drag on for eternity.
edit: Also:
So in addition to advocating for genocide in Gaza, you’re going to advocate for ethnic cleansing of Armenians and the people of Western Sahara?
I’m not advocating for any of those, but I understand you want to make it appear as such
I’m saying that the most peaceful solution is for Hezbollah (and Hamas) to accept their loss and stop trying to ethnically cleanse the jews out of Palestine. Their sporadic cross-border attacks can only be stopped effectively with a crushing military response and all the death and destruction that comes with it
Israel would have to occupy Tehran to stop the funding & arming of the terrorism that it is fighting. Do they roll their tanks through irak and syria to get there? And doesnt Iran have nukes by now?
The only option for peace is a two state solution. All the sides have to start talking and stop fighting. And that starts with Israel.
First, why would it have to start with Israel and not both sides? Don’t forget that Hamas tried to tank the Oslo accords with a series of suicide attacks in the mid-90’s.
And why wouldn’t a one state solution be an option for peace, given time? A lot of Arab nations were already moving towards normalisation with Israel. Which is why Hamas and Hezbollah need to stoke the fire every once in a while.
I’m reading interviews with Hamas militants who want their children to continue their fight to return to the village that their own grandparents were chased out of (within the 1948 jewish-allocated borders no less). As in: return to the village that these kids’ great-grandparents had lived in. And failing that, probably go on to move back to the villages of their great-great-greatparents?
At a certain point there’s limitations on the links between generations and whether they want to spend their lives trying to right the wrongs done to their ancestors that they didn’t even know themselves, or to go on with their lives in the present. There aren’t, for example, that many African-American slave descendants still trying to reclaim their ancestors’ tribes’ lands in Africa, or native Americans (north and south) trying to push all the immigrants since the late 1400s back into the sea. History and humanity move on.
So what is more important the life of one Israeli civilian or the life of one Palestinian civilian in your eyes?
Believe me if you were now trapped in Gaza, you would have completely different perspective on the matters.
Do you mean that if you lived in Gaza (say pre oct 7), you’d rather try to kill as many Israelis as possible and sacrifice yourself for that instead of choosing peace?
Also, as per the latest poll, finally a majority thinks that the choice for violence wasn’t the best idea
Removed by mod
Removed, advocating violence and self harm.
The last time “bombing to peace” worked was in WW2, when the US killed 200.000 Japanese civillians with two nukes. The threat was clear. Surrender or face total annihilation.
There is a term for that. It is called genocide. But in the case of Israel they would first need to genocide all of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Jordan. So some 50-60 Million people. Then all the other Muslims will feel threatened and fight back, like the West and UDSSR did against Nazis Germany. So in the second round, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Yemen and Oman will have to be genocided to achieve “peace”. That is some 200 million people. But then the rest of the world, except for Israels enablers in the US, Germany, UK and other few allies will feel threatened. So then the genocide needs to kill some 7 billion people.
That is the logic of the escalator “seeking peace” through killing everyone opposing him. When the US fought Japan, it was also liberating the countries around it. When Israel is fighting everyone around it, it is always clear that it will step it up to attack the next country and the next after that.
The nuclear bombing of Japan didn’t need to happen. They were already willing to surrender even before that.
If you don’t know of any conflict being ended with violence after WW2, you might want to sign up to some history podcast or something
You can’t bomb ideas.
Let me explain how we can prove you’re 100% full of bullshit.
If this had anything to do with security, bibi would resign, hand over reins to someone who didn’t fuck up and let the hostages be taken in the first place, and Israel could come up with plans slightly more nuanced and thought through than ‘Wauuugghh!!!’
He’s desperate to keep power because hes Bibi, he’d use Iran getting nukes under his watch as an excuse for why he had to keep power, every failure from incompetence is just another argument for why he can’t possibly be replaced.
You have a dictator, and it would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.
Your post makes me wonder which country you’re from, and how you’re so sure your neighbours can’t barge in with a few thousand soldiers and capture 250 hostages
If you’re suggesting that pre-Al Aqsa Flood-Bibi was too weak on Gaza, then well… Yeah
America, we had a similar surprise once.
Our reaction did not give us the assurance we desired.
Bibi is a corrupt tool, he incited the assassination of Rabin and he’s basically a far smarter Trump.
Israel is doomed because of him, because for such an ideologue security is fuel and he won’t let you stop until greater Israel or it’s complete destruction, there is no middle ground.
Yeah, funny how out of all countries the US didn’t go: “look, I get that you want revenge, but what we did after 9/11 wasn’t productive in the least, so we’re telling you to reconsider.”
The US spent 20 years in Afghanistan, killed millions, traumatised/gave cancer to entire generations of their own soldiers and had nothing to show for it.
You couldn’t be more wrong
We gave billions to the very country that supported the taliban and hid bin ladin for a decade.
And we destroyed the middle east, causing the refugee crisis that is hitting the world and causing trouble.
Not to mention we burned trillions.
We were epic moroms, manipulated by assholes like Pakistan and Israel when all we should have done was what Obama did, put a few rounds in bin ladin and thrown him off the ship.
Perhaps
But a) chances are it wouldn’t have been so easy to just chopper in and out of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to nab him, and b) it’s questionable that just killing one figurehead in retaliation for a massive terror attack that killed thousands wouldn’t just embolden them
You’re reaching, hard.
There is no way in which the current outcome was better for the US than if we had simply eliminated OBL, all our responses after Afghanistan directly hurt us.
They actually hurt Israel too, even though theyre too stubborn and ignorant to appreciate it, we had a number of divided groups that would never move lest someone gain advantage, now we have Iran ascendant with no force to oppose them.
We gave Iraq to Iran, because Israel thought they could use us to mow down anyone they considered a problem, and because our president was a complete moron.
More words, while they kept shipping them weapons.
They have nukes. During the cold war the nuclear option was the thing that terrified everyone. Israeli right now is a full blown Rogue state that abso-fucking-lutely will go nuclear if the US pulls support. Forget about the communist-capitalist thing, it’s about some crazed colonialist who believe they should have everything or no one has anything.
They won’t.
They will go nuclear if they get in a desperate position, basically worse than the Yom Kippur War, but short of that they’re not going to bother, and they won’t get in that position, they’re too powerful and most of the middle east is still on fire.
If they got away with all this, they might also believe they can get away with a nuke. If they do they will cite the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings as justifications, saying that the Japanese didn’t surrender to massive firebombing the same way Arabs didn’t surrender to massive bombardment, and thus for both cases nukes are needed.
This is, of course, monstrous and wrong.
You are doing the same thing they do, dehumanizing the other side.
They’re not monsters just hungry for blood, they want the land, all of it, and are in a position that they feel pretty secure that none of their neighbors can seriously threaten them, thats why they’re acting how they are, not fear but secure in their ability to act without repercussion.
Using a nuke is the equivalent of flipping the table when you’re losing, and they’re winning.
Can I ask why you think they’re that stupid? Your suggestions show them as very childish actors when it comes to IR, which they haven’t shown any similar behavior in recent memory, they’ve been playing solid moves given their position.
That tells me everything I need to know about what kind of knowledge level you have about the matter.
Sorry.
The Land of America you say
Do you think your leader is strong enough to prevent a few thousand Canadians from rushing the border for a few hours?
No, which is why it’s a good thing we aren’t occupying Toronto.
Ironically we did invade and occupy Canada once because we thought we could take their land.
It went very poorly for us, but unlike Israel we learned a lesson. Then again, we are capable of learning, but then again our politics weren’t completely founded on our most backwardly hyperreligious messianic nightmare psychos back then.
Your zealots are a cancer on your polity, just like ours are. Palestinians didn’t butcher Rabin.
Well, you’re going pretty off-topic from your original statement that Bibi should have been replaced with someone that could have prevented the hostage-takings.
Also, you might want to read up on what happened to the natives that lived where you live now.
I’m going off-topic?!?! Do you know how responses work?
Yeah, they were genocided, much like Israel is doing to the people who lived there. Not defending that in any way, we were monsters and we need to make what reparations we can to them and give them decent land even though it wouldn’t begin to make up.
Much like Israel needs to accede to the original UN partition plan of 48, which they will never ever do because secretly most believe in a Greater Israel.
Well that brings us to an interesting point
If you are unwilling to vacate from your clearly stolen land… Then why should the Israelis?
The only hostage
that in Yahoonetanyahu is trying to prevent, is him in some kind of jail cell.