▲ 413 ▼ Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by snek@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 142 comments fedilink hide all child comments Israeli PM said to have turned down proposal in early talks and continues to take tough line
[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 2 years ago (2 children) That Hamas did was abhorrent, as was the response of Israel. What motivation do Hamas have to just take the current occupation of Gaza and living in such a way? Genuinely curious. This just seems like nobody will win and everybody will suffer. For what? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] wurzelgummidge@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago For what? To keep the wheels of the military industrial complex turning permalink fedilink source parent [+] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -12 points 2 years ago (1 child) What motivation do Hamas have to just take the current occupation of Gaza and living in such a way? Genuinely curious. Less lives lost, even in the long term. We won't know what would have been, but there may well have been a diplomatic solution that got Gazan independence. But Hamas is built on violence is the answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) Your answer is basically “suffer forever so nobody dies trying to stop the suffering”. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well, yeah, if you care about lives on both sides... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Grimy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's a bit silly. Sentencing a whole population to "suffer forever" isn't caring for them. It's like you didn't even read what he said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Nah, I think people just didn't get that I was saying the reason someone would view how Gaza was like before 10/7 as good, could only be because you only care about Israeli civilian deaths and not Palestinians. Explaining jokes kind of ruins them, but I guess in this case I overestimated people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 years ago Use the /s permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago So your comment was sarcastic? (which kind of seems obvious in hindsight, woops) I don't really get your explanation to be honest and how what you said relates to that. permalink fedilink source parent [+] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -11 points 2 years ago (2 children) Why would a two state solution continue the suffering? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago (2 children) In the West Bank, with no Hamas presence, Israeli settlers backed by the IDF come kill them and take their homes. The Israeli leadership doesn’t want a two state solution because extreme Zionists are in power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Also, the Gaza settlements were dismantled in 2005, before Hamas came to power in 2007. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) They went from occupation to siege. Not much improvement. I also wasn’t talking about Gaza so try to stay on topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I was taking about Gaza, since that's where Hamas is primarily active, and that's what the original comment was about. That's why I was focusing on Gaza. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago I’m talking about Palestinians in general because they all get brutalized and Hamas is used as justification when they are only in one territory. Hamas is used as a distraction from the fact that Israelis just want to steal all of Palestinians land. Regardless, the occupation in Gaza turned into a blockade/siege, why do people say they occupation stopped like that meant anything in practical terms for the citizens on the ground. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) They weren't in power when Hamas came to power. Both sides have been pushing each other towards wanting to annihilate each other. But do you think a two state solution would minimize the suffering, but is not a feasible outcome? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 years ago (2 children) A two-state solution was viable before Israel settled people in the middle of the west bank. As an intentional tactic of Zionist settlers, it is now impossible to have a defensible border. The only way forward now is to end apartheid and give full rights to the civilians living in the West Bank and Gaza. Zionists will claim this “destroys Israel” or other nonsense we heard from South African defenders of apartheid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Didn't Israel remove all Gaza settlements in 2005? Seems like they could do the same for the West Bank. And why would that be needed for an independent Gaza? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 years ago Israeli Zionists would rather genocide Palestinians than give up their West Bank settlements. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I would also be in favor of ending racist government policies and giving full rights and protections to Palestinians, but that is really difficult with the terrorist actions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's an escalation ladder, both sides need to deescalate together to lower hostilities. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Saying “both sides” is siding with the oppressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But they're literally both oppressors permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You're also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it's doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible. I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it's 'violence is the only answer' stance. permalink fedilink source parent [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) The Zionists I’m talking about funded and propped up Hamas. Likud is not younger than Hamas. You seem to have a very limited understanding of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, maybe, you're right I have only spent a few hours looking into the origin and spread of Hamas. But whether Hamas was funded by Zionists is irrelevant to whether their use of violence creates more or less suffering overall. In response to the original question, I think Hamas is causing much more harm and suffering to the people of Gaza by their excessive violence than diplomatic efforts likely would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But why shift it on Hamas when it's Israel breaking every humanitarian law? I'm asking seriously. Whatever response Hamas expected, I'm not sure it included bombing every single hospital or it's vicinity in one night (which happened already) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago For the time being, and prior to cutover 7th, the two-state solution was either perpetually on hold or completely unworkable because of Israel (in both cases). Will it help stop the stuffing from moving on? Maybe if it's implemented properly, yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wurzelgummidge@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago For what? To keep the wheels of the military industrial complex turning permalink fedilink source parent
[+] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -12 points 2 years ago (1 child) What motivation do Hamas have to just take the current occupation of Gaza and living in such a way? Genuinely curious. Less lives lost, even in the long term. We won't know what would have been, but there may well have been a diplomatic solution that got Gazan independence. But Hamas is built on violence is the answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) Your answer is basically “suffer forever so nobody dies trying to stop the suffering”. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well, yeah, if you care about lives on both sides... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Grimy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's a bit silly. Sentencing a whole population to "suffer forever" isn't caring for them. It's like you didn't even read what he said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Nah, I think people just didn't get that I was saying the reason someone would view how Gaza was like before 10/7 as good, could only be because you only care about Israeli civilian deaths and not Palestinians. Explaining jokes kind of ruins them, but I guess in this case I overestimated people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 years ago Use the /s permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago So your comment was sarcastic? (which kind of seems obvious in hindsight, woops) I don't really get your explanation to be honest and how what you said relates to that. permalink fedilink source parent [+] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -11 points 2 years ago (2 children) Why would a two state solution continue the suffering? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago (2 children) In the West Bank, with no Hamas presence, Israeli settlers backed by the IDF come kill them and take their homes. The Israeli leadership doesn’t want a two state solution because extreme Zionists are in power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Also, the Gaza settlements were dismantled in 2005, before Hamas came to power in 2007. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) They went from occupation to siege. Not much improvement. I also wasn’t talking about Gaza so try to stay on topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I was taking about Gaza, since that's where Hamas is primarily active, and that's what the original comment was about. That's why I was focusing on Gaza. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago I’m talking about Palestinians in general because they all get brutalized and Hamas is used as justification when they are only in one territory. Hamas is used as a distraction from the fact that Israelis just want to steal all of Palestinians land. Regardless, the occupation in Gaza turned into a blockade/siege, why do people say they occupation stopped like that meant anything in practical terms for the citizens on the ground. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) They weren't in power when Hamas came to power. Both sides have been pushing each other towards wanting to annihilate each other. But do you think a two state solution would minimize the suffering, but is not a feasible outcome? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 years ago (2 children) A two-state solution was viable before Israel settled people in the middle of the west bank. As an intentional tactic of Zionist settlers, it is now impossible to have a defensible border. The only way forward now is to end apartheid and give full rights to the civilians living in the West Bank and Gaza. Zionists will claim this “destroys Israel” or other nonsense we heard from South African defenders of apartheid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Didn't Israel remove all Gaza settlements in 2005? Seems like they could do the same for the West Bank. And why would that be needed for an independent Gaza? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 years ago Israeli Zionists would rather genocide Palestinians than give up their West Bank settlements. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I would also be in favor of ending racist government policies and giving full rights and protections to Palestinians, but that is really difficult with the terrorist actions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's an escalation ladder, both sides need to deescalate together to lower hostilities. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Saying “both sides” is siding with the oppressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But they're literally both oppressors permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You're also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it's doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible. I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it's 'violence is the only answer' stance. permalink fedilink source parent [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) The Zionists I’m talking about funded and propped up Hamas. Likud is not younger than Hamas. You seem to have a very limited understanding of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, maybe, you're right I have only spent a few hours looking into the origin and spread of Hamas. But whether Hamas was funded by Zionists is irrelevant to whether their use of violence creates more or less suffering overall. In response to the original question, I think Hamas is causing much more harm and suffering to the people of Gaza by their excessive violence than diplomatic efforts likely would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But why shift it on Hamas when it's Israel breaking every humanitarian law? I'm asking seriously. Whatever response Hamas expected, I'm not sure it included bombing every single hospital or it's vicinity in one night (which happened already) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago For the time being, and prior to cutover 7th, the two-state solution was either perpetually on hold or completely unworkable because of Israel (in both cases). Will it help stop the stuffing from moving on? Maybe if it's implemented properly, yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) Your answer is basically “suffer forever so nobody dies trying to stop the suffering”. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well, yeah, if you care about lives on both sides... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Grimy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's a bit silly. Sentencing a whole population to "suffer forever" isn't caring for them. It's like you didn't even read what he said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Nah, I think people just didn't get that I was saying the reason someone would view how Gaza was like before 10/7 as good, could only be because you only care about Israeli civilian deaths and not Palestinians. Explaining jokes kind of ruins them, but I guess in this case I overestimated people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 years ago Use the /s permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago So your comment was sarcastic? (which kind of seems obvious in hindsight, woops) I don't really get your explanation to be honest and how what you said relates to that. permalink fedilink source parent [+] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -11 points 2 years ago (2 children) Why would a two state solution continue the suffering? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago (2 children) In the West Bank, with no Hamas presence, Israeli settlers backed by the IDF come kill them and take their homes. The Israeli leadership doesn’t want a two state solution because extreme Zionists are in power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Also, the Gaza settlements were dismantled in 2005, before Hamas came to power in 2007. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) They went from occupation to siege. Not much improvement. I also wasn’t talking about Gaza so try to stay on topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I was taking about Gaza, since that's where Hamas is primarily active, and that's what the original comment was about. That's why I was focusing on Gaza. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago I’m talking about Palestinians in general because they all get brutalized and Hamas is used as justification when they are only in one territory. Hamas is used as a distraction from the fact that Israelis just want to steal all of Palestinians land. Regardless, the occupation in Gaza turned into a blockade/siege, why do people say they occupation stopped like that meant anything in practical terms for the citizens on the ground. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) They weren't in power when Hamas came to power. Both sides have been pushing each other towards wanting to annihilate each other. But do you think a two state solution would minimize the suffering, but is not a feasible outcome? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 years ago (2 children) A two-state solution was viable before Israel settled people in the middle of the west bank. As an intentional tactic of Zionist settlers, it is now impossible to have a defensible border. The only way forward now is to end apartheid and give full rights to the civilians living in the West Bank and Gaza. Zionists will claim this “destroys Israel” or other nonsense we heard from South African defenders of apartheid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Didn't Israel remove all Gaza settlements in 2005? Seems like they could do the same for the West Bank. And why would that be needed for an independent Gaza? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 years ago Israeli Zionists would rather genocide Palestinians than give up their West Bank settlements. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I would also be in favor of ending racist government policies and giving full rights and protections to Palestinians, but that is really difficult with the terrorist actions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's an escalation ladder, both sides need to deescalate together to lower hostilities. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Saying “both sides” is siding with the oppressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But they're literally both oppressors permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You're also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it's doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible. I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it's 'violence is the only answer' stance. permalink fedilink source parent [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) The Zionists I’m talking about funded and propped up Hamas. Likud is not younger than Hamas. You seem to have a very limited understanding of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, maybe, you're right I have only spent a few hours looking into the origin and spread of Hamas. But whether Hamas was funded by Zionists is irrelevant to whether their use of violence creates more or less suffering overall. In response to the original question, I think Hamas is causing much more harm and suffering to the people of Gaza by their excessive violence than diplomatic efforts likely would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But why shift it on Hamas when it's Israel breaking every humanitarian law? I'm asking seriously. Whatever response Hamas expected, I'm not sure it included bombing every single hospital or it's vicinity in one night (which happened already) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago For the time being, and prior to cutover 7th, the two-state solution was either perpetually on hold or completely unworkable because of Israel (in both cases). Will it help stop the stuffing from moving on? Maybe if it's implemented properly, yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well, yeah, if you care about lives on both sides... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Grimy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's a bit silly. Sentencing a whole population to "suffer forever" isn't caring for them. It's like you didn't even read what he said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Nah, I think people just didn't get that I was saying the reason someone would view how Gaza was like before 10/7 as good, could only be because you only care about Israeli civilian deaths and not Palestinians. Explaining jokes kind of ruins them, but I guess in this case I overestimated people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 years ago Use the /s permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago So your comment was sarcastic? (which kind of seems obvious in hindsight, woops) I don't really get your explanation to be honest and how what you said relates to that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's a bit silly. Sentencing a whole population to "suffer forever" isn't caring for them. It's like you didn't even read what he said. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Nah, I think people just didn't get that I was saying the reason someone would view how Gaza was like before 10/7 as good, could only be because you only care about Israeli civilian deaths and not Palestinians. Explaining jokes kind of ruins them, but I guess in this case I overestimated people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 years ago Use the /s permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago So your comment was sarcastic? (which kind of seems obvious in hindsight, woops) I don't really get your explanation to be honest and how what you said relates to that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Nah, I think people just didn't get that I was saying the reason someone would view how Gaza was like before 10/7 as good, could only be because you only care about Israeli civilian deaths and not Palestinians. Explaining jokes kind of ruins them, but I guess in this case I overestimated people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 years ago Use the /s permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago So your comment was sarcastic? (which kind of seems obvious in hindsight, woops) I don't really get your explanation to be honest and how what you said relates to that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago So your comment was sarcastic? (which kind of seems obvious in hindsight, woops) I don't really get your explanation to be honest and how what you said relates to that. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -11 points 2 years ago (2 children) Why would a two state solution continue the suffering? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago (2 children) In the West Bank, with no Hamas presence, Israeli settlers backed by the IDF come kill them and take their homes. The Israeli leadership doesn’t want a two state solution because extreme Zionists are in power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Also, the Gaza settlements were dismantled in 2005, before Hamas came to power in 2007. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) They went from occupation to siege. Not much improvement. I also wasn’t talking about Gaza so try to stay on topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I was taking about Gaza, since that's where Hamas is primarily active, and that's what the original comment was about. That's why I was focusing on Gaza. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago I’m talking about Palestinians in general because they all get brutalized and Hamas is used as justification when they are only in one territory. Hamas is used as a distraction from the fact that Israelis just want to steal all of Palestinians land. Regardless, the occupation in Gaza turned into a blockade/siege, why do people say they occupation stopped like that meant anything in practical terms for the citizens on the ground. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) They weren't in power when Hamas came to power. Both sides have been pushing each other towards wanting to annihilate each other. But do you think a two state solution would minimize the suffering, but is not a feasible outcome? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 years ago (2 children) A two-state solution was viable before Israel settled people in the middle of the west bank. As an intentional tactic of Zionist settlers, it is now impossible to have a defensible border. The only way forward now is to end apartheid and give full rights to the civilians living in the West Bank and Gaza. Zionists will claim this “destroys Israel” or other nonsense we heard from South African defenders of apartheid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Didn't Israel remove all Gaza settlements in 2005? Seems like they could do the same for the West Bank. And why would that be needed for an independent Gaza? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 years ago Israeli Zionists would rather genocide Palestinians than give up their West Bank settlements. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I would also be in favor of ending racist government policies and giving full rights and protections to Palestinians, but that is really difficult with the terrorist actions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's an escalation ladder, both sides need to deescalate together to lower hostilities. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Saying “both sides” is siding with the oppressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But they're literally both oppressors permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You're also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it's doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible. I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it's 'violence is the only answer' stance. permalink fedilink source parent [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) The Zionists I’m talking about funded and propped up Hamas. Likud is not younger than Hamas. You seem to have a very limited understanding of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, maybe, you're right I have only spent a few hours looking into the origin and spread of Hamas. But whether Hamas was funded by Zionists is irrelevant to whether their use of violence creates more or less suffering overall. In response to the original question, I think Hamas is causing much more harm and suffering to the people of Gaza by their excessive violence than diplomatic efforts likely would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But why shift it on Hamas when it's Israel breaking every humanitarian law? I'm asking seriously. Whatever response Hamas expected, I'm not sure it included bombing every single hospital or it's vicinity in one night (which happened already) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago For the time being, and prior to cutover 7th, the two-state solution was either perpetually on hold or completely unworkable because of Israel (in both cases). Will it help stop the stuffing from moving on? Maybe if it's implemented properly, yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago (2 children) In the West Bank, with no Hamas presence, Israeli settlers backed by the IDF come kill them and take their homes. The Israeli leadership doesn’t want a two state solution because extreme Zionists are in power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Also, the Gaza settlements were dismantled in 2005, before Hamas came to power in 2007. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) They went from occupation to siege. Not much improvement. I also wasn’t talking about Gaza so try to stay on topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I was taking about Gaza, since that's where Hamas is primarily active, and that's what the original comment was about. That's why I was focusing on Gaza. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago I’m talking about Palestinians in general because they all get brutalized and Hamas is used as justification when they are only in one territory. Hamas is used as a distraction from the fact that Israelis just want to steal all of Palestinians land. Regardless, the occupation in Gaza turned into a blockade/siege, why do people say they occupation stopped like that meant anything in practical terms for the citizens on the ground. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) They weren't in power when Hamas came to power. Both sides have been pushing each other towards wanting to annihilate each other. But do you think a two state solution would minimize the suffering, but is not a feasible outcome? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 years ago (2 children) A two-state solution was viable before Israel settled people in the middle of the west bank. As an intentional tactic of Zionist settlers, it is now impossible to have a defensible border. The only way forward now is to end apartheid and give full rights to the civilians living in the West Bank and Gaza. Zionists will claim this “destroys Israel” or other nonsense we heard from South African defenders of apartheid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Didn't Israel remove all Gaza settlements in 2005? Seems like they could do the same for the West Bank. And why would that be needed for an independent Gaza? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 years ago Israeli Zionists would rather genocide Palestinians than give up their West Bank settlements. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I would also be in favor of ending racist government policies and giving full rights and protections to Palestinians, but that is really difficult with the terrorist actions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's an escalation ladder, both sides need to deescalate together to lower hostilities. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Saying “both sides” is siding with the oppressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But they're literally both oppressors permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You're also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it's doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible. I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it's 'violence is the only answer' stance. permalink fedilink source parent [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) The Zionists I’m talking about funded and propped up Hamas. Likud is not younger than Hamas. You seem to have a very limited understanding of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, maybe, you're right I have only spent a few hours looking into the origin and spread of Hamas. But whether Hamas was funded by Zionists is irrelevant to whether their use of violence creates more or less suffering overall. In response to the original question, I think Hamas is causing much more harm and suffering to the people of Gaza by their excessive violence than diplomatic efforts likely would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But why shift it on Hamas when it's Israel breaking every humanitarian law? I'm asking seriously. Whatever response Hamas expected, I'm not sure it included bombing every single hospital or it's vicinity in one night (which happened already) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Also, the Gaza settlements were dismantled in 2005, before Hamas came to power in 2007. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) They went from occupation to siege. Not much improvement. I also wasn’t talking about Gaza so try to stay on topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I was taking about Gaza, since that's where Hamas is primarily active, and that's what the original comment was about. That's why I was focusing on Gaza. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago I’m talking about Palestinians in general because they all get brutalized and Hamas is used as justification when they are only in one territory. Hamas is used as a distraction from the fact that Israelis just want to steal all of Palestinians land. Regardless, the occupation in Gaza turned into a blockade/siege, why do people say they occupation stopped like that meant anything in practical terms for the citizens on the ground. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) They went from occupation to siege. Not much improvement. I also wasn’t talking about Gaza so try to stay on topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I was taking about Gaza, since that's where Hamas is primarily active, and that's what the original comment was about. That's why I was focusing on Gaza. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago I’m talking about Palestinians in general because they all get brutalized and Hamas is used as justification when they are only in one territory. Hamas is used as a distraction from the fact that Israelis just want to steal all of Palestinians land. Regardless, the occupation in Gaza turned into a blockade/siege, why do people say they occupation stopped like that meant anything in practical terms for the citizens on the ground. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I was taking about Gaza, since that's where Hamas is primarily active, and that's what the original comment was about. That's why I was focusing on Gaza. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago I’m talking about Palestinians in general because they all get brutalized and Hamas is used as justification when they are only in one territory. Hamas is used as a distraction from the fact that Israelis just want to steal all of Palestinians land. Regardless, the occupation in Gaza turned into a blockade/siege, why do people say they occupation stopped like that meant anything in practical terms for the citizens on the ground. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago I’m talking about Palestinians in general because they all get brutalized and Hamas is used as justification when they are only in one territory. Hamas is used as a distraction from the fact that Israelis just want to steal all of Palestinians land. Regardless, the occupation in Gaza turned into a blockade/siege, why do people say they occupation stopped like that meant anything in practical terms for the citizens on the ground. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) They weren't in power when Hamas came to power. Both sides have been pushing each other towards wanting to annihilate each other. But do you think a two state solution would minimize the suffering, but is not a feasible outcome? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 years ago (2 children) A two-state solution was viable before Israel settled people in the middle of the west bank. As an intentional tactic of Zionist settlers, it is now impossible to have a defensible border. The only way forward now is to end apartheid and give full rights to the civilians living in the West Bank and Gaza. Zionists will claim this “destroys Israel” or other nonsense we heard from South African defenders of apartheid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Didn't Israel remove all Gaza settlements in 2005? Seems like they could do the same for the West Bank. And why would that be needed for an independent Gaza? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 years ago Israeli Zionists would rather genocide Palestinians than give up their West Bank settlements. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I would also be in favor of ending racist government policies and giving full rights and protections to Palestinians, but that is really difficult with the terrorist actions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's an escalation ladder, both sides need to deescalate together to lower hostilities. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Saying “both sides” is siding with the oppressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But they're literally both oppressors permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You're also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it's doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible. I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it's 'violence is the only answer' stance. permalink fedilink source parent [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) The Zionists I’m talking about funded and propped up Hamas. Likud is not younger than Hamas. You seem to have a very limited understanding of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, maybe, you're right I have only spent a few hours looking into the origin and spread of Hamas. But whether Hamas was funded by Zionists is irrelevant to whether their use of violence creates more or less suffering overall. In response to the original question, I think Hamas is causing much more harm and suffering to the people of Gaza by their excessive violence than diplomatic efforts likely would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But why shift it on Hamas when it's Israel breaking every humanitarian law? I'm asking seriously. Whatever response Hamas expected, I'm not sure it included bombing every single hospital or it's vicinity in one night (which happened already) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 years ago (2 children) A two-state solution was viable before Israel settled people in the middle of the west bank. As an intentional tactic of Zionist settlers, it is now impossible to have a defensible border. The only way forward now is to end apartheid and give full rights to the civilians living in the West Bank and Gaza. Zionists will claim this “destroys Israel” or other nonsense we heard from South African defenders of apartheid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Didn't Israel remove all Gaza settlements in 2005? Seems like they could do the same for the West Bank. And why would that be needed for an independent Gaza? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 years ago Israeli Zionists would rather genocide Palestinians than give up their West Bank settlements. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I would also be in favor of ending racist government policies and giving full rights and protections to Palestinians, but that is really difficult with the terrorist actions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's an escalation ladder, both sides need to deescalate together to lower hostilities. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Saying “both sides” is siding with the oppressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But they're literally both oppressors permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You're also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it's doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible. I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it's 'violence is the only answer' stance. permalink fedilink source parent [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Didn't Israel remove all Gaza settlements in 2005? Seems like they could do the same for the West Bank. And why would that be needed for an independent Gaza? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 years ago Israeli Zionists would rather genocide Palestinians than give up their West Bank settlements. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 years ago Israeli Zionists would rather genocide Palestinians than give up their West Bank settlements. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I would also be in favor of ending racist government policies and giving full rights and protections to Palestinians, but that is really difficult with the terrorist actions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's an escalation ladder, both sides need to deescalate together to lower hostilities. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Saying “both sides” is siding with the oppressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But they're literally both oppressors permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You're also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it's doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible. I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it's 'violence is the only answer' stance. permalink fedilink source parent [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's an escalation ladder, both sides need to deescalate together to lower hostilities. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Saying “both sides” is siding with the oppressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But they're literally both oppressors permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You're also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it's doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible. I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it's 'violence is the only answer' stance. permalink fedilink source parent [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's an escalation ladder, both sides need to deescalate together to lower hostilities. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Saying “both sides” is siding with the oppressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But they're literally both oppressors permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You're also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it's doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible. I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it's 'violence is the only answer' stance. permalink fedilink source parent [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Saying “both sides” is siding with the oppressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But they're literally both oppressors permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You're also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it's doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible. I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it's 'violence is the only answer' stance. permalink fedilink source parent [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) But they're literally both oppressors permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You're also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it's doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible. I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it's 'violence is the only answer' stance. permalink fedilink source parent [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You're also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it's doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible. I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it's 'violence is the only answer' stance. permalink fedilink source parent [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You're also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it's doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible. I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it's 'violence is the only answer' stance. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) The Zionists I’m talking about funded and propped up Hamas. Likud is not younger than Hamas. You seem to have a very limited understanding of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, maybe, you're right I have only spent a few hours looking into the origin and spread of Hamas. But whether Hamas was funded by Zionists is irrelevant to whether their use of violence creates more or less suffering overall. In response to the original question, I think Hamas is causing much more harm and suffering to the people of Gaza by their excessive violence than diplomatic efforts likely would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But why shift it on Hamas when it's Israel breaking every humanitarian law? I'm asking seriously. Whatever response Hamas expected, I'm not sure it included bombing every single hospital or it's vicinity in one night (which happened already) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, maybe, you're right I have only spent a few hours looking into the origin and spread of Hamas. But whether Hamas was funded by Zionists is irrelevant to whether their use of violence creates more or less suffering overall. In response to the original question, I think Hamas is causing much more harm and suffering to the people of Gaza by their excessive violence than diplomatic efforts likely would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But why shift it on Hamas when it's Israel breaking every humanitarian law? I'm asking seriously. Whatever response Hamas expected, I'm not sure it included bombing every single hospital or it's vicinity in one night (which happened already) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But why shift it on Hamas when it's Israel breaking every humanitarian law? I'm asking seriously. Whatever response Hamas expected, I'm not sure it included bombing every single hospital or it's vicinity in one night (which happened already) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago For the time being, and prior to cutover 7th, the two-state solution was either perpetually on hold or completely unworkable because of Israel (in both cases). Will it help stop the stuffing from moving on? Maybe if it's implemented properly, yes. permalink fedilink source parent