[Pants-of-dog]

While I have no doubt that many Israeli politicians want to give Gaza the same treatment as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I doubt they also want to invest in a Marshall plan for Gaza.

[late]

Note the same thing was done with both Germany and Japan and indeed the US army was prepared to fight a resistance if necessary.

We were building allies, Israel is not, and will not.

That will require a cultural shift, prob more than what a new administration could do.

[wat0n]

We were building allies, Israel is not, and will not.

That will require a cultural shift, prob more than what a new administration could do.

Israel wouldn't have to do that, though. An international peacekeeping force, to keep Gaza away from Israeli far-rightists, would if Israel committed to a two-state solution. Which is still very much possible if Netanyahu is replaced soon.

[QatzelOk]

While I have no doubt that many Israeli politicians want to give Gaza the same treatment as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I doubt they also want to invest in a Marshall plan for Gaza.

A Marshall Plan for Palestinians... promoted during this genocide?

Remember the lack of Marshall Plan that the Acadians got after the British ethnic-cleansed them? The "plan" that followed was to eliminate all traces of French in the region where they used to live. French in this context, was the equivalent of the hated "olive trees" of Palestine that were replaced by more Euro-looking pine trees by the incoming Israelis. They even hated Palestinian trees.

And Western politicians looked the other way and chanted "we like a 2-state solution" when Israelis were even hating Palestine's trees!

Israelis hate on someone and then losers like us are expected to kill these hate-objects in order to demonstrate that we are not anti-semitic at all. Asked to kill, we kill because "we are good people."

Most people are slaves, and dumb slaves at that. By law.
Stupidity is mandatory and enforced.
Ask your state or provincial representative for more details.

[late]

Israel wouldn't have to do that, though. An international peacekeeping force, to keep Gaza away from Israeli far-rightists, would if Israel committed to a two-state solution. Which is still very much possible if Netanyahu is replaced soon.

Pure fantasy.

[wat0n]

Pure fantasy.

That was already offered to Netanyahu but he said no. Hence why Netanyahu needs to go just like Hamas.

[JohnRawls]

Pure fantasy.

Correct, the problem is far far larger than just Netanyahu. The population of Israel should be blamed also and far worse than Russians at that. Russia is a dictatorship while Israel is a democracy.

They had and have their chance to guide the process in a more peaceful direction but they didn't. They wanted revenge but didn't ever say to stop when it went overboard. Do they even consider regular Palestinians humans at this point? I mean the average Joe in Israel?

Hamas is obviously worse but that changes the substance very little if you want a solution for this conflict that doesn't involve one or the other wiping each other out.

Unless there is change in the minds of one side then peace will never happen in a normal way.

But it's not just that. Since we Europeans and Americans are batshit stupid on this and dishonest, it literally leaves no choice for our governments to literally support Israel due to the absence of alternative from us and the situation.

[RealPolitic]

@wat0n @Pants-of-dog

I am not buying the notion that Iran isn't behind many of the attacks by Hezbollah or Hamas. I have no doubt Iran is behind the terrorist attack that Hamas committed against Isreal. It, without a doubt serves Iran's interests and to suggest otherwise is to simply ignoring the obvious. Besides, why would Iran spend the money supporting and arming Hezbollah and Hamas if they didn't get a return on their investment to which it served their own interests.

It would be foolish to assume that Iran is just doing it out of some sort of heart felt desire to be charitable to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah or Hamas. The Iranians are spending this kind of money on Hezbollah and Hamas because they are getting something in return that serves their interests. Pure and simple. Thats how the world works. People spend money for something in return. Especially if they are states.

For example, the US spent money on the Marshall Plan to prevent the communists from taking power in war ruined Western Europe. If the US did not, then communist regimes probably have taken over in Western Europe due to the terrible conditions left from World War II. The Marshall Plan served American interests. And its the same with Iran. They spend the money supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah because it serves their interests. They are getting something in return for supporting these terrorist organizations.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n @Pants-of-dog

I am not buying the notion that Iran isn't behind many of the attacks by Hezbollah or Hamas. I have no doubt Iran is behind the terrorist attack that Hamas committed against Isreal. It, without a doubt serves Iran's interests and to suggest otherwise is to simply ignoring the obvious. Besides, why would Iran spend the money supporting and arming Hezbollah and Hamas if they didn't get a return on their investment to which it served their own interests.

It would be foolish to assume that Iran is just doing it out of some sort of heart felt desire to be charitable to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah or Hamas. The Iranians are spending this kind of money on Hezbollah and Hamas because they are getting something in return that serves their interests. Pure and simple. Thats how the world works. People spend money for something in return. Especially if they are states.

For example, the US spent money on the Marshall Plan to prevent the communists from taking power in war ruined Western Europe. If the US did not, then communist regimes probably have taken over in Western Europe due to the terrible conditions left from World War II. The Marshall Plan served American interests. And its the same with Iran. They spend the money supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah because it serves their interests. They are getting something in return for supporting these terrorist organizations.

Yes, it is clear why Iran would like that.

The question is why would Hamas willingly risk death for Iran? Simple money does not seem to explain that.

[paeng]

"Saying What Can't Be Said: Israel Has Been Defeated – a Total Defeat"

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/202 ... ef6ba10000

[wat0n]

@wat0n @Pants-of-dog

I am not buying the notion that Iran isn't behind many of the attacks by Hezbollah or Hamas. I have no doubt Iran is behind the terrorist attack that Hamas committed against Isreal. It, without a doubt serves Iran's interests and to suggest otherwise is to simply ignoring the obvious. Besides, why would Iran spend the money supporting and arming Hezbollah and Hamas if they didn't get a return on their investment to which it served their own interests.

It would be foolish to assume that Iran is just doing it out of some sort of heart felt desire to be charitable to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah or Hamas. The Iranians are spending this kind of money on Hezbollah and Hamas because they are getting something in return that serves their interests. Pure and simple. Thats how the world works. People spend money for something in return. Especially if they are states.

For example, the US spent money on the Marshall Plan to prevent the communists from taking power in war ruined Western Europe. If the US did not, then communist regimes probably have taken over in Western Europe due to the terrible conditions left from World War II. The Marshall Plan served American interests. And its the same with Iran. They spend the money supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah because it serves their interests. They are getting something in return for supporting these terrorist organizations.

Indeed, Iran is evidently not moved by charitable considerations in its support for Hezbollah and specially Hamas (Hamas is different because 1) it's not a Shia group but an offshoot of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, 2) Hamas sided with the Syrian opposition in the civil war there). Evidently, what Iran wants is leverage.

But would you say the October 7 massacre was successful in this regard? What kind of leverage did Iran gain? It's not like Hamas managed to hold on to Israeli territory for long, if that was the kind of leverage Iran wanted to gain it would have made more sense to also mobilize Hezbollah to force Israel into a two-front war, which would have in turn led Hezbollah itself fight a two-front war in the Blue Line with Israel and in Syria as the rebels there would have felt emboldened by the chance an Israel-Hezbollah war would present to them.

Delay an Israeli-Saudi peace agreement? Iran can probably live with that, now if anything the one that may end up gaining leverage after the dust settles is Saudi Arabia, above all. And yes, this was predictable.

[Rich]

I am not buying the notion that Iran isn't behind many of the attacks by Hezbollah or Hamas. I have no doubt Iran is behind the terrorist attack that Hamas committed against Israel. It, without a doubt serves Iran's interests and to suggest otherwise is to simply ignoring the obvious.

Please stop with these filthy anti Aryan lies.

Here we have a conflict between Semites. A conflict between Semites who both worship a Semite God. Many people argue that it is the same Semite God that they worship, that Allah is actually the same name origin as El. Its funny how cuckservatives, liberals and Marxists all seek to lay the blame on Indoeuropeans. Some say its all the fault of evil Infidel Gentile White Imperialists and some say its all the fault of the Aryans. Attacking Israel is not in the intersts of Aryans / Iranians at all. not in the slightest. Iran is only obsessing about Israel because they have been cucked into believing the filthy lies of Islam.

That's also the problem in south Asia, in India, that so many Indians have fallen under the sway of this cuck Semitic ideology. Thank the real Gods, the Europeans and the British took over the place when they did.

[RealPolitic]

@Pants-of-dog

The question is why would Hamas willingly risk death for Iran? Simple money does not seem to explain that.

A fair point. So, it would seem Iran and Hamas have shared interests. After all, in international relations there are only interests and shared interests. Hamas felt that if Israel and Saudi Arabia made peace, their cause of wiping out Israel entirely (an unrealistic goal) and getting all land back that Jewish settlers took from them would be abandoned by the rest of the world. Their terrorist attack on Israel prevented that but costed Palestinians dearly in loss of life. Whereas, with Iran, their interests are stopping Israel from becoming stronger by preventing a peace deal with Saudi Arabia. Hamas's terrorist attack achieved that as well.

[Pants-of-dog]

….
Hamas felt that if Israel and Saudi Arabia made peace, their cause of wiping out Israel entirely (an unrealistic goal) and getting all land back that Jewish settlers took from them would be abandoned by the rest of the world. Their terrorist attack on Israel prevented that but costed Palestinians dearly in loss of life. ….

This seems implausible.

The rest of the world never supported the ideas of giving land back or wiping out Israel. So there is no real risk that this support would be lost, since it never existed in the first place.

[RealPolitic]

@Pants-of-dog

This seems implausible.

The rest of the world never supported the ideas of giving land back or wiping out Israel. So there is no real risk that this support would be lost, since it never existed in the first place.

But the world does support a two state solution. Even the US supports a two state solution. The current Israeli government does not. So, in the eyes of Hamas, they felt that their cause of at least having their own homeland was being abandoned and forgotten by the rest of the world.

[wat0n]

It's not the "rest of the world" Hamas cares about but probably the "rest of the Islamic world" that matters to them.

But even then, it doesn't seem like enough of a good reason. I would think Hamas may have believed its position within Gaza was growing shaky (there were large protests against Hamas in Gaza a couple of months before the war) or it was coerced by one of its patrons.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog

But the world does support a two state solution. Even the US supports a two state solution. The current Israeli government does not. So, in the eyes of Hamas, they felt that their cause of at least having their own homeland was being abandoned and forgotten by the rest of the world.

You were not discussing a two state solution.

You were discussing the destruction of Israel.

Which one is part of your argument?

[Rich]

But the world does support a two state solution.

Does it?

Even the US supports a two state solution.

Does it?

Question: Whats the difference between "From the River to the Sea" and "Two States"

Answer: 13 kilometers

That's the difference between "From the River to the Sea" and a return to the 1967 borders. If the Palestinians were given the West Bank, they would be less than the 13 kilometres from reaching the Sea, splitting Israel in two and set about wiping the two parts off the map. Long term the Jews are never going to trust the Arabs with that vulnerability. Genocide Joe may claim he supports a two state solution, but its nothing but empty words.

[Saeko]

[RealPolitic]

@Pants-of-dog

You were not discussing a two state solution.

You were discussing the destruction of Israel.

Which one is part of your argument?

That's not exactly accurate what you stated here. Its disingenuous to put people into perfect little boxes. But I guess I have to clarify since some people insist on categorizing others in perfect little white or black boxes instead of recognizing other humans as something more complex than that.

I was discussing how Hamas perceives its own interests based on what they have stated and how they have acted. I was not discussing what I think somebody else's interests are given they might not agree with me. Its better to see the perspectives of those directly involved to understand why they act the way they act and how they perceive their own interests.

Hamas has written in their charter that their objective is to completely destroy all of Israel to get all their land back that was stolen from them by Jewish settlers. That being said, I think on some level, Hamas recognizes that is not a realistic goal and is not achievable even though they might not publicly admit it. So, I think, on some level, they understand, the best they can hope for is a two state solution.