Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

For anyone who may have missed the point, my 'appetizers' comment was a way of indicating that U.S. support for Israel predated the official formation of the state in 1948. This implies a deeper, more longstanding relationship, as it's unusual for nations to extend substantial support to a newly formed state in '11 minutes,' unless they have a pre-existing, intimate understanding of that state.

Maybe it was a "give them someplace to go so they don't come here" sort of thing.

Exactly. America was rather antisemitic at the time, the founding of Israel would get some Jews to leave here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe it was a "give them someplace to go so they don't come here" sort of thing.

Honestly, I believe that a much bigger motivation for Allied powers than "Oh those poor Christ killers. We've been so mean to them."

It gave westerners an out. Kinda like telling black folks "Go back to Africa." Google Liberia.

That plus a beachhead within military striking distance of the gulf oil reserves.

Add the colonialist attitude of "fuck the natives, we'll put borders wherever we damn well please."

And you've got the creation of The State of Israel.
Tom

Disagree on the relevance of the beachhead, agree on the rest of it.

 

[TV and credit cards]

And in the next episode of we're right and everyone else is wrong,

The United Nations Assembly adopted the resolution titled “Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” (document A/ES-10/L.27) by a recorded vote of 153 in favour to 10 against (Austria, Czech Republic, Guatemala, Israel, Liberia, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, United States), with 23 abstentions, during a resumption of its tenth Emergency Special Session on Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Yes, Austria, Czech Republic, Guatemala, Israel, Liberia, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, United States voted no. We're in good company. How can so many nation (153) be so wrong?
Austria? I would have figured them for an abstention. Austria's conservative People's Party said Hamas was not named along with a strong condemnation.

Symbolic, I know but it does serve to record our shame into history.

A bit on Austria's vote. Available in reader view.

Why did Austria vote against a Gaza ceasefire?

Austria was one of just four countries in the EU to vote against the UN’s resolution for a ceasefire in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, alongside Czechia, Hungary and Croatia. Why did the neutral Alpine Republic take a hard stance?

www.thelocal.at

 

[Gospel]

When people talk about Zionists - I can easily tell that they have no idea what they are talking about. I think in most cases what they are unwittingly referring to are Israeli conservatives.

Zionism is a political ideology that is not exclusive to any particular group. It encompasses individuals of various backgrounds and beliefs. Within the Jewish community, there are those who support Zionism and those who do not. Individuals of diverse nationalities can also be identified as Zionists. When I refer to Zionist, I am acknowledging an alignment with a specific ideology. One that advocates for the establishment and support of a Jewish homeland in the historic region of Israel. It starts with Palestine today, then it will be Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria tomorrow.

 

[jonatha]

It starts with Palestine today, then it will be Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria tomorrow.

This is new to me.

Other than the entirety of the West Bank, is the hard right in Israel really claiming historical ownership/divine grant of Lebanon, the rest of Jordan, and Syria??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't hear enough about the fact that Israel's #1 problem (even more than Hamas) is the fact that they have become a right wing nation. The left are pretty non-existent. They have drifted right since the Oslo accords and now have embraced far-right ideologies such as homophobia, nationalism, politics of fear., etc...A right wing govt is a weak govt easily provoked into doing some thing stupid - not unlike how the the US reacted to 9/11 - provoked into two devastating wars. Hamas knew that and seized upon it.

They have been pushed right by the actions of the Palestinians.

Hamas is a death cult, neither right nor left - simply authoritarian terrorists. They rely on the deaths of Palestinians to fuel their movement, as right-wing govts rely on an "other" to fuel their support. Netanyahu has benefited from Hamas. just as Trump benefits from "rapist mexicans", Brexiteers benefit from "Wogs", We could list every right wing govt in existence and easily cite the evil doers they are "protecting" you from.

I don't really think death cult is the right term--the people at the top aren't interested in dying and the people at the bottom are doing it from economic necessity.

 

[Harry Bosch]

When people talk about Zionists - I can easily tell that they have no idea what they are talking about. I think in most cases what they are unwittingly referring to are Israeli conservatives.

Zionism is a political ideology that is not exclusive to any particular group. It encompasses individuals of various backgrounds and beliefs. Within the Jewish community, there are those who support Zionism and those who do not. Individuals of diverse nationalities can also be identified as Zionists. When I refer to Zionist, I am acknowledging an alignment with a specific ideology. One that advocates for the establishment and support of a Jewish homeland in the historic region of Israel. It starts with Palestine today, then it will be Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria tomorrow.

Naw. Zionism is simply the belief that jews need a homeland where don't have to rely on a different group to protect them. They want to protect themselves. It's the belief that they have a right to their own homeland. Based on history, makes sense.

 

[Gospel]

When people talk about Zionists - I can easily tell that they have no idea what they are talking about. I think in most cases what they are unwittingly referring to are Israeli conservatives.

Zionism is a political ideology that is not exclusive to any particular group. It encompasses individuals of various backgrounds and beliefs. Within the Jewish community, there are those who support Zionism and those who do not. Individuals of diverse nationalities can also be identified as Zionists. When I refer to Zionist, I am acknowledging an alignment with a specific ideology. One that advocates for the establishment and support of a Jewish homeland in the historic region of Israel. It starts with Palestine today, then it will be Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria tomorrow.

Naw. Zionism is simply the belief that jews need a homeland where don't have to rely on a different group to protect them. They want to protect themselves. It's the belief that they have a right to their own homeland. Based on history, makes sense.

Then I'm a Zionists, because I see absolutely nothing wrong with any group of people wanting to protect themselves & having a right to their own homeland.

 

[bilby]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with any group of people wanting to protect themselves & having a right to their own homeland.

The problem comes when the place they want for their homeland is already someone else's homeland.

They should have gone for a New World location with far fewer pre-existing local inhabitants, and/or with a population that actively welcomed them. It worked for tbe Mormons in Utah, and it worked for the Jews in New York; They should just relocate the entire state of Israel to the northern part of Australia.

 

[Harry Bosch]

When people talk about Zionists - I can easily tell that they have no idea what they are talking about. I think in most cases what they are unwittingly referring to are Israeli conservatives.

Zionism is a political ideology that is not exclusive to any particular group. It encompasses individuals of various backgrounds and beliefs. Within the Jewish community, there are those who support Zionism and those who do not. Individuals of diverse nationalities can also be identified as Zionists. When I refer to Zionist, I am acknowledging an alignment with a specific ideology. One that advocates for the establishment and support of a Jewish homeland in the historic region of Israel. It starts with Palestine today, then it will be Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria tomorrow.

Naw. Zionism is simply the belief that jews need a homeland where don't have to rely on a different group to protect them. They want to protect themselves. It's the belief that they have a right to their own homeland. Based on history, makes sense.

Then I'm a Zionists, because I see absolutely nothing wrong with any group of people wanting to protect themselves & having a right to their own homeland.

Yep. I'm a Zionist. But I'm also a Palestinianst! I think that the Palestinians deserve their own homeland also. But the far-right Israelis and Hamas are teaming up to make this endeavor very difficult.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When people talk about Zionists - I can easily tell that they have no idea what they are talking about. I think in most cases what they are unwittingly referring to are Israeli conservatives.

Zionism is a political ideology that is not exclusive to any particular group. It encompasses individuals of various backgrounds and beliefs. Within the Jewish community, there are those who support Zionism and those who do not. Individuals of diverse nationalities can also be identified as Zionists. When I refer to Zionist, I am acknowledging an alignment with a specific ideology. One that advocates for the establishment and support of a Jewish homeland in the historic region of Israel. It starts with Palestine today, then it will be Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria tomorrow.

Naw. Zionism is simply the belief that jews need a homeland where don't have to rely on a different group to protect them. They want to protect themselves. It's the belief that they have a right to their own homeland. Based on history, makes sense.

Why do I feel that Zionism has a different meaning in the middle Israel verses on the borders of Israel with Gaza?

 

[Gospel]

It starts with Palestine today, then it will be Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria tomorrow.

This is new to me.

Other than the entirety of the West Bank, is the hard right in Israel really claiming historical ownership/divine grant of Lebanon, the rest of Jordan, and Syria??

I concede I overstated, yet it wasn't without basis. Given the current situation in Gaza and the evident geopolitical motivations behind the U.S.'s support, it raises the question: why stop at Gaza?

 

[jonatha]

why stop at Gaza?

The IDF is going to have enough trouble accomplishing whatever it thinks its mission is in Gaza. Expanding the operation elsewhere isn't on the cards.

 

[Gospel]

Sure, currently. Israel's presence in Gaza is a response to actions attributed to Hamas. If the dynamics were to change, such as Hamas is removed and the region comes under Israeli control - which I speculate is the goal - to me it's not uncertain how Israel would respond to potential hostilities originating from neighboring countries like Jordan, Lebanon, or Syria. What will stop them?

• Russia bouncing between bodies trying to deescalate like its a school brawl?
• The US sending thoughts, prayer & guns?
• Iran's angry emojis?
• Whiney the poo?

Saudi Arabia will be at ring side waiting to get tagged in.

 

[TomC]

Why do I feel that Zionism has a different meaning in the middle Israel verses on the borders of Israel with Gaza?

Zionism is one of those hot button words with more connotations than meaning.

Someone once pointed out that there are more Zionists in Texas than Israel. That was based on the meaning "Believes that Exodus is a permanent land grant directly from God." That's a staunch bit of Bible Literalism, very popular amongst the Evangelical Christians. Add to that the belief that if the Jews rebuilt the Temple bringing about The Rapture, they'd all magically go straight to Heaven.

They may still be very bigoted against Jews, but it's hardcore Zionism. It's easy to be an anti-Jewish bigot and staunch Zionist at the same time.

Ya know, if you're a Christian.
Tom

 

[Harry Bosch]

Sure, currently. Israel's presence in Gaza is a response to actions attributed to Hamas. If the dynamics were to change, such as Hamas is removed and the region comes under Israeli control - which I speculate is the goal - to me it's not uncertain how Israel would respond to potential hostilities originating from neighboring countries like Jordan, Lebanon, or Syria. What will stop them?

• Russia bouncing between bodies trying to deescalate like its a school brawl?
• The US sending thoughts, prayer & guns?
• Iran's angry emojis?
• Whiney the poo?

Saudi Arabia will be at ring side waiting to get tagged in.

I'm sure the Israeli right would like more land. But IMO, would be a mistake. And I think that the average Israeli agrees. Who would want to be responsible for Gaza? Egypt surely doesn't! But not many countries would tolerate a terrorist attack of the magnitude that was launched on 10.7. The US dang sure wouldn't.

 

[Gospel]

Sure, currently. Israel's presence in Gaza is a response to actions attributed to Hamas. If the dynamics were to change, such as Hamas is removed and the region comes under Israeli control - which I speculate is the goal - to me it's not uncertain how Israel would respond to potential hostilities originating from neighboring countries like Jordan, Lebanon, or Syria. What will stop them?

• Russia bouncing between bodies trying to deescalate like its a school brawl?
• The US sending thoughts, prayer & guns?
• Iran's angry emojis?
• Whiney the poo?

Saudi Arabia will be at ring side waiting to get tagged in.

I'm sure the Israeli right would like more land. But IMO, would be a mistake. And I think that the average Israeli agrees. Who would want to be responsible for Gaza? Egypt surely doesn't! But not many countries would tolerate a terrorist attack of the magnitude that was launched on 10.7. The US dang sure wouldn't.

Certainly, the United States wouldn't stand for an assault on its territory. However, if it were actively encroaching upon the lands of the attackers, especially under a magic declaration claiming ownership of that land without the consent or involvement of those residing there, the US couldn't claim to be a victim.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Sure, currently. Israel's presence in Gaza is a response to actions attributed to Hamas. If the dynamics were to change, such as Hamas is removed and the region comes under Israeli control - which I speculate is the goal - to me it's not uncertain how Israel would respond to potential hostilities originating from neighboring countries like Jordan, Lebanon, or Syria. What will stop them?

• Russia bouncing between bodies trying to deescalate like its a school brawl?
• The US sending thoughts, prayer & guns?
• Iran's angry emojis?
• Whiney the poo?

Saudi Arabia will be at ring side waiting to get tagged in.

I'm sure the Israeli right would like more land. But IMO, would be a mistake. And I think that the average Israeli agrees. Who would want to be responsible for Gaza? Egypt surely doesn't! But not many countries would tolerate a terrorist attack of the magnitude that was launched on 10.7. The US dang sure wouldn't.

Certainly, the United States wouldn't stand for an assault on its territory. However, if it were actively encroaching upon the lands of the attackers, especially under a magic declaration claiming ownership of that land without the consent or involvement of those residing there, the US couldn't claim to be a victim.

Amigo, you won't find me defending the settlers!

 

[Gospel]

Defending the settlers is justifiable though, as they are essentially seeking a place to reside. The issue becomes more complex when these settlers start exhibiting hostility towards the local inhabitants of the area they choose to settle in. It's in these instances of aggression that the situation becomes morally ambiguous.

Just as those who find their lands being occupied, provided it's not causing critical issues, should refrain from resorting to violence against the settlers.

What we have here is a incredibly stupid idea leading to issues that those initiating it saw coming a mile away and didn't give a flying fuck.

 

[TomC]

Certainly, the United States wouldn't stand for an assault on its territory. However, if it were actively encroaching upon the lands of the attackers, especially under a magic declaration claiming ownership of that land without the consent or involvement of those residing there, the US couldn't claim to be a victim.

So if the Iroquois launched a missile attack on Cincinnati, the U.S. would give in and agree to try to live in peace from now on?
Tom