While some hail Hamas for apparently being the most merciful and humanitarian hostage-taker in the world, let that sink in: you've got adult men and women who take 4 years old kids as hostages...
🇳🇱
There is no excuse for this and no one should be praising hamas.
Just as there was no excuse when the IDF used children of a similar age as human shields and got called to international court on war crimes for it (And refused to show)..
In the end anyone taking **either** side as the good guy is morally corrupt. The hammas are evil, the IDF is evil, full stop.
Absolutely, as the invaders and occupiers the Israel side is significantly worse morally.
At this point its not relevant that the Israelis are the worse... they both commit war crimes and terrorism... Debating what murderer and torturer is the nicer one has little interest to me.
But if you insist then yea, the one who started the fight,a nd did so with a mass genocide is very clearly the worse of the two, regardless of what the other side did after being occupied.
If i break into someones house and chain the whole family up in the bathroom and punch them in the face every day, and they respond by kicking me in the balls when they get the chance, I'm still the worse one, I cant be praised for "taking the high oad and not kicking them in the balls" when im the one who came in, took over their home, and locked them into a small bathroom. It doesnt make kicking me in the balls right, but it does clearly make me the wrong one as the theif and initial abuser.
You seem to have a lot of good ideas about the war. So let’s assume you’re Israel, it’s 7 October, you woke up to the barrage of rockets from Gaza and Hamas fighters slaughtering Israeli civilians. What’s you plan?
I would issue a public apology for invading a country that wasnt mine and occupying it for 80 years and commiting genocide, war crimes and terrorism. I would also state that palestine has done the same and neither of us are right. I would then offer a complete withdrawl of Israel from the region, a dissolution of the state under the condition that 1) all hostages are returned 2) all israelis are allowed an appropriate amount of time to leave the country and 3) any israelis that decide to stay who were born on the land be granted citizenship in Palestine and an equal vote.
Once palestine agrees and the hostages released I would dissolve the state and leave.
Now in all reality neither me nor anyone has complete control to decide the situation. So in any practical sense that will never happen, nor am I expecting it to. But youa sked what I would do if i had control and that would be it.
I would dissolve the state and leave.
Okay, sounds like a great plan indeed. Plans like this are the main reason why the war is now going on for 80 years, and Hamas continuously wrecks any agreed actual peace plans.
Your response makes absolutely no sense.. If you dissolve the state and leave there is no state to have a war WITH... so no the war didnt continue for 80 years because of ideas like this, that makes no sense.
But postulating 10 million people who built the whole country for several generation does make sense?
In my scenario the israelis still own whatever they own and live there. They just are under the government that actually owns the land, palestine. As I said one of the conditions is anyone born ont he land is allowed to stay and given citizenship, this also assumes they retain whatever private land they own so long as they bought it fairly from the palestinian that owned it.
Obviously any infrastructure that exists through theft does not make sense to be allowed to keep.
I think the realism of your plan is best assessed through Hamas position on Holocaust and best illustrated the number of Jews living in Gaza.
Not sure why any of that matters.. its their land, they did nothing to deserve loosing it and were simply invaded. So until the occupying force leaves and especially when they are the ones overpowered and forced into ghettos,then there is absolutely no chance for the Israelis to be the good guys.
The whole "but we built up the area after we stole it and killed everyone" is a pretty damn poor excuse for why they should keep it.
Your statement "it's their land" is exclusively based on 1947 as an arbitrary cut-off date. If Palestinians "were invaded" by Jews, then what in your opinion happened to Jerusalem in 1187?
I won't even comment on your postulate that the extremely antisemitic policy of Hamas "doesn't matter", because it's precisely the part that makes your plan so detached from reality.
@realcaseyrollins
@kravietz @freemo > Your statement "it's their land" is exclusively based on 1947 as an arbitrary cut-off date. If Palestinians "were invaded" by Jews, then what in your opinion happened to Jerusalem in 1187?
I'm curious as to his response to this one. It's almost impossible to hold to a "muh stolen land" position without cognitive dissonance because nearly all lands that are owned by various nations (except for #Alaska) were taken by conquest.
I'm not seeing many people running around saying "Free #Texas" and claiming we need to give it back to #Mexico.
Generally speaking moral nations that took land through conquest make an attempt to make up for it by giving that land back to the people later in generous qty, with very generous rules and government subsedies.
Look at the native americans, they get automatic citizenship, free movement from reservations to american soil with complete equality legally on american soil. AND are given tons of authority over their land that no other legal framework exists for any other people. So much so our cops cant even arrest people on their land.
Moreover this is **veryy=** rare. In almost all historic cases when we conquer land the natives of that land are allowed to continue living on it (under a new rule), even in anctient times.
So yea the level of brutalitya nd immorality of Israel to literally wipe the land clean of the natives is a level of evil that is rarely seen, even in history. Native americans are really the only well known example of that and even then as I said we gave up a LOT to try to apologize for that.
Nevermind the fact that for that to happen in modern times is almost unheard of and when it does consistently cuases public outrage, as it is with the invasion of georgia, ukraine, etc.
@freemo @kravietz > to literally wipe the land clean of the natives is a level of evil that is rarely seen, even in history
Isn't that generally what happens? Outside of modern history, I thought that if the natives weren't forced to flee or were made slaves, they were usually indeed slaughtered. #GenghisKhan was actually notorious for this, I think. #China is also doing a bit of both genocide and slavery to the #Uyghur Muslims.
> Your statement "it's their land" is exclusively based on 1947 as an arbitrary cut-off date.
Not at all, that is not how I determine whose land it is.
I determine whose land it is by who can show the longest multi-generational ties to the land. If you can show you were born on the land and lived there for the last 20 generations its your land... some guy who has some 1000 year old claim to the land he cant show a clear right of ownership to then it isnt his land.
If you can show you are the direct descendant and **prove** it with paper work of someone 1000 years ago taking your land from you, and you can show specifically what plot of land you owned, then yea, that land should be yours. Virtually no individual jew can do that. In fact most jews are so intermarried they cant even say they have any connection to the jews at all other than it being a religion they practiced for multiple generations. But to connect them as inheretors of land from 1000 years ago, not even remotely close.
Meanwhile the palestinians, most of those show they have lived on that land and have a clear chain of ownership for hundreds of years.
> If Palestinians "were invaded" by Jews, then what in your opinion happened to Jerusalem in 1187?
Something that has nothing to do with modern times and no one can even show any heritage connection to those events on either side, soits irrelevant.
> I won't even comment on your postulate that the extremely antisemitic policy of Hamas "doesn't matter", because it's precisely the part that makes your plan so detached from reality.
I am glad you are refusing to comment on something I never said or even remotely implied... smart move.
@freemo @kravietz > If you can show you are the direct descendant and prove it with paper work of someone 1000 years ago taking your land from you, and you can show specifically what plot of land you owned, then yea, that land should be yours. Virtually no individual jew can do that.
Wait a second, hold on. Now, this is secondhand research (I've heard #Destiny mention this on his streams several times and he's pretty well-read on the subject but I don't know his sources well), but isn't that literally the main reason why Palestinians have been having trouble making the case for getting back into the homes they've been displaced from, as they didn't have written deeds?
You wouldnt need a written deed, just proof you were born there and it is multi-generational. Citizenship is based on where you are born, not what you own.
But while citizenship should be automatic ownership of the plot of land might be debatable... IF they can show they were born there and dont have a deed, then someone else would have to prove they had a deed that pre-dated their birth and living in that home. The earlier deed wins, but absense of a physical deed it would default to whoever can show they were born and raised there first (since no owner can otherwise be identified).
As I said in my details, its a matter of precidence.
If someone doesnt have a deed but can show they have lived in a home they were born in... AND the only person who can show a deed shows it **after** this person was kicked out. AND that deed was not legally signed and transfered from the original owner, then the deed is invalid.
Only way the jews could create a deed to a plot of land and have it be valid in this scenario is if no one can show they had stewardship over the land before them (or explicit ownership).
In other words, if I am born to a plot of land that no one owned, and built a home on it and cared for it, especially across multiple generations, then you would effectively be considered the owner. Only way to invalidate that is to show an owner existed before you.
He just bailed out of debating Dr. Norman Finkelstein because he knows he's going to get his ass kicked.
https://twitter.com/autumngroyper/status/1725941856574337423
The reason -why- he's weighing in on the Israel matter is because he got badly beaten by Nick Fuentes in a discussion on jewish influence on American politics. He knew nothing about the Iraq and Syrian wars, he knew nothing about the office of special affairs, nothing about the "special relationship" of America and Israel, nothing about middle-eastern politics and nothing about basic geography. You can see the debate here.
https://rumble.com/v2zay60-nick-fuentes-destiny-sneako-and-jonzherka-debate-.html
Discussion on the jewish question begins at 54:33. I highly recommend you watch it. I'm surprised that there are still black people who are carrying water for jews after what happened to Ye and Kyrie Irving. The Fresh and Fit people and their friends are black or part black and they are all redpilled on the JQ. This isn't just a "white supremacist" talking point.
In his debate with historyspeaks, he goes into it not having studied anything past the six-day-war. Your "expert" is a man in his 30s that thinks he can treat these matters like he's cramming for a test and only studying half the required reading should be "good enough" because he'll at least get a passing grade.
https://rumble.com/v3ups8y-destiny-doesnt-know-anything-about-israel-and-palestine.html
Nick Fuentes analyzes this and completely tears apart his bad arguments. Not just from a factual perspective but because Destiny uses lots of "gamer tricks" to control the debate and make it seem like he's winning. When you pause and examine what he's saying... you can see that he's full of shit.
What does DNA have to do anything. I never said DNA should matter.
A parent can only pass a single item to a single child at a time. Typically if your many generations removed even if one out of a thousand of your ancestors is jewish or cannite or anything else that does **not** show inheretance rights to a plot of land. And unless you were born there (or if you want to be a bit lax your living parents were born there) you dont have a right to citizenship either.
Exactly, and thus my whole point.
When I argue palestinians right to the land I never use anctient arguments. I use the fact that these are the people born to the land with multigenerational ties to the land today. That is what gives them the right, not their dna or the bible or any other nonsense.
> I determine whose land
Well, except the very concept of "land ownership" is a social construct and in the society populating Palestine and Israel nobody cares about how you "determine the ownership" using carefully cherry-picked criteria.
The reason why I mentioned this was to point out that the question of "whose land" can be seen in two semantic spaces, which are largely exclusive:
* legal, in which case you need to base your analysis on the international law, which includes all peace agreements signed by Palestine, latest being 1993 Oslo Accord, which makes your proposal of "dissolution of Israel" irrelevant, except for some specific extrajudicial land takeover by settlers
* moral, in which case you can go as far back as you wish, but granted complex history of Middle East you loose on each Muslim conquest of Jerusalem (there were many of them) — using the very arguments you raised against "Israeli occupation"! — and you also loose ultimately on the *first* Muslim siege of Jerusalem simply because Islam appeared 600 years after Christianity and that was several thousands after Jahwe religion
In any case, you can't honestly pick and mix from these semantic systems.
> Virtually no individual jew can do that.
But Palestinians can?
> comment on something I never said or even remotely implied
I pointed out at, if that needs clarification, that no Jews live under Hamas rule, which is kind of obvious, granted their viciously antisemitic stance.
Which makes your whole plan unrealistic as on the hypothetical dissolution of Israel we would immediately witness the largest pogrom in history.
You said "it doesn't matter".
@realcaseyrollins
> Well, except the very concept of "land ownership" is a social construct and in the society populating Palestine and Israel nobody cares about how you "determine the ownership" using carefully cherry-picked criteria.
Sure its a social construct, but the criteria I picked is more or less the criteria the world uses rather consistently. Plus it makes logical sense. Much more so than your idea of "well 2000 years ago some people who might be remotely related to me were here"
> The reason why I mentioned this was to point out that the question of "whose land" can be seen in two semantic spaces, which are largely exclusive:
I;d argue botht he legal and the moral are fairly well addressed by the typical standard I put forth. You are the citizen of the land you are born to. Your ties to the land are based on how many generations of birth that may go back as well.
> In any case, you can't honestly pick and mix from these semantic systems.
I didnt, legally I made clear there had to be a clear chain of ownership and/or presence on the land to claim to be the owner, and whoever can show the earliest form of this wins. And morally the rules are largely the same, whoever is born there, is part of there, that is the natural default.
> But Palestinians can?
Yes absolutely. After spending 2 years in the region I can tell you almost every pallestinian, well a lot anyway, have a very proud heritage. In their living room it is common to show a family tree of all the family members born in that house and on that land. They often love to show you their papers and family history and are quite proud to show their ties to the land over many hundreds of years.
Jews on the other hand rarely can show ties to the land, the overwhelming majority can only show ties through an invading force in modern history and can not show a natural connection to the land. You do have some palestinian jews of course who can show ties to the land, but even then it is as a palestinian who is a jew, not as an israelite. Which would give them a right to palestinian citizenship and a home but not an argument for a jewish state.
> I pointed out at, if that needs clarification, that no Jews live under Hamas rule, which is kind of obvious, granted their viciously antisemitic stance.
Then a jew has two options... 1) dont stay if you dont like the region, especially if you are the invader .. or 2) stay and change things.
When a country has crime and hates a certain group thats not an excuse to commit genocide and take over. It is an excuse to clean up your society and try to eliminate the hammas to create a unified country for all palestinians, both jewish palestinians and arab.
> Which makes your whole plan unrealistic as on the hypothetical dissolution of Israel we would immediately witness the largest pogrom in history.
Not if the jews left, which is what most would and should do... I mean maybe you shouldnt commit genocide on the natives if you dont want to be hated as a people, that would be a nice first place to start.. and now that the hatred is there you can leave, or you can take the risk to try and stay and make things right.. but the risks and the unfortunate nature of that choice has no one to blame but you (the israelis) for committing genocide in the first place.
Its like saying "but if they stop committing genocide then everyone might hate them and be violent towards them"... sure... the answer to that isnt to let them continue to commit genocide.
> 2) stay and change things.
You can't "change things" if you're dead, which state is consistent with the Hamas' policy towards all Jews.
@realcaseyrollins
Sure you can. in fact dying for a cause tends to cause much greater change than surviving it.. we call those martyr.
And yea, people might die, and that is sad.. but they also created the hate towards them directly via their actions.. they killed to make people hate them, so while i dont want to see violence against them I also wont use the fact that they are hated for murder as an excuse to allow them to murder.
When you are responsible for creating hatred, violence, and crime, partly due to the very poverty you intentionally inflict, then there are consequences. Cleaning up crime even in america results in a lot of cops dying, that is just part of the process to fix things, so if you dont want cops dying create a society that has less violence rather than complaining about a society being violent when you are the one who made that happen.
Remember the Hamas didnt exist prior to the israel invasion. Also remember several Israeli terrorists groups arose pre-israel long before the hamas even took shape.
@freemo @kravietz I am honestly somewhat astonished at this take.
> And yea, people might die, and that is sad.. but they also created the hate towards them directly via their actions
> When you are responsible for creating hatred, violence, and crime, partly due to the very poverty you intentionally inflict, then there are consequences.
People supporting genocide against Palestinians could very easily say the same thing.
> Not if the jews left, which is what most would and should do
Does your peace plan also involve all non-indigenous residents leaving USA? That would be at least consistent.
@realcaseyrollins
I would apply the same rules to the USA yes, but the way you summarized it is **not** what I suggested for israel. Again no one is required to leave.
If it were to be applied to the USA then the US government would dissolve and the native american government would be the default. All people who choose to stay born on the land would become citizens and all people not born on the land may be allowed to stay at the discretion of the new government.
Since we would all be citizens in the new government we could all vote collectively on how or if we want people not born on the land to be treated and if they will be granted residence or not. It is very likely such a vote (Which would largely be non-natives as natives are a small portion of the population) would allow the immigrants to stay.
In the case of israel the same would happen but since the palestinians are in much greater numbers the vote in the new unified nation would be more fairly split between the two, and thus would have some concern for the jews who remain baked in as a result, since they are a huge portion of the vote.
> Again no one is required to leave.
Of course, only if they want to survive. No pressure.
@realcaseyrollins
No its not "fine" but it is much better... no id apply the exact same rules... but the population difference here would have very different results... With the natives having control the americans that are left would still be te overwhelming majority of the vote since we all would have citizenship still under the rules if we chose to stay.
In israel the vote is more fairly split so the nation would need to find bigger compromises int eh voting booth. But ultimately both groups interests would be more evenly represented there.
@kravietz @freemo Unfortunate, but true.
It's interesting to see how many #FreePalestine homies are oblivious to this as well.
Ok now you just passed into a territory I cant go... the holocaust happened and the jews were the victim. This does **not** justify them performing a holocaust on another group, particularly one that isnt the germans. But if we deny the obvious fact the holocaust happened then we have no right to have much of an opinion IMO.
I appreciate that.
I have no problem focusing on the parts of the conversation likely to be more productive.
I mean even when the "war" wasnt on like it is now they had power and water turned off inpalestinian territories as punishment... Them commiting war crimes, along with palestine, has always been par for the course
Yea the occupation of Israel as a whole is a war crime. But a country commiting a war crime does not justify violence against non-combatants.
The taking of hostages could be said to be a taking or prisoners, and I think it is fair that if a foreign non-combatant is on your land then you do have a right to arrest them.
The issue with the attack is the abuse and violence executed against them. While you may be justified in arresting a non-citizen on your land you do not have the right to massacre 100s of them. A country commiting a war crime does NOT mean you can mass murder non violent people regardless of if what they are doing is legal or not.
The explanation is one Hamas gave.. they said every israeli is a combatant.. which makes no sense unless we consider they all were in the IDF at some point... but thats mental gymnastics.
They murdered civilians, if we are being fair to ourselves even if you support palestine, it was wrong.
They are a hard group to pin down because they act in ways that are self defeating to the groups they claim to be a part.
I suspect hamas was encourage to start this phase of the war by russia (perhaps indirectly) as a means to take the focus off the Ukrainian invasion.
1. I don't know that Hamas and Russia get along. Remember that the point of Hamas being supported by Israel and the US was to unseat the PLO which was aligned with the Soviet Union.
2. The west would prefer people didn't pay attention to Ukraine because Ukraine is losing pretty badly and it looks like it's only going to get much worse for winter. It's actually to Russia's benefit that the collective west's failure is on full display.
3. The assistance the US is sending Israel is in the form of carrier groups which aren't the sort of land based vehicles that Russia would want to peel off the battlefield.
4. The eastern Mediterranean is close to the black sea which means America are much closer to directly intervening in Ukraine. Not to mention that they're right next to Syria where Russia has it's airbases and friendly ports.
This doesn't really help Russia at all.
I did have an idea who might stand to benefit though. And it pains me to say it... but... China may have had an incentive to provoke this conflict. The reason being that during the G20 summit, Israel unveiled their plans for an economic corridor going from India across the sea to UAE to Saudi Arabia to Jordan to Israel through to Mediterranean and then to Europe. This would be in direct competition with China's Belt and Road Initiative. When Netanyahu showed the IMEC corridor, I thought to myself... "Now China HAS to do something about Israel."
I'd have liked it that China had found a way to destroy Israel. But... this October 7th incident has gone and provoked a predictable brutal overreaction from Israel that has made it that they will probably not be able to normalize relations with their middle-eastern neighbours. Even if the leaders of these middle-eastern countries were willing to overlook the genocide of the Palestinians for a chance to line their pockets, their people would never accept it and they'd likely be violently deposed. Added to that, you have the Houthis in Yemen attacking commercial tankers which casts doubt on the IMEC corridor being a safe trade route. I think it's safe to say that that plan of Israel's is going to have to stay on ice for quite a while.
The only other possibility I can entertain is that Hamas is the real deal and they did this themselves for a good reason. After the IMEC corridor was unveiled, it seemed like they were going to speed up the Abraham Accords so that people could start making money right away. The Abraham Accords would see to it that Israel could get away with grinding down the Palestinians while still enjoying trade and normalized relations with it's neighbours. The Palestinians knew that this would spell their slow death. So instead of dying slowly and quietly, they went out with a bang. They created an amazing kino spectacle with their paragliders and they made it all as messy as possible to provoke an even messier reaction from Israel in such a way that would forever destroy Israel's integration in the region.
It was a last stand worthy of the Spartans at Therompylae. In the same way Leonidas united the Greeks against the Persian empire, Hamas is uniting the Muslim world against Israel. And we've already seen talks between leaders like Assad, MBS and Raisi taking place.
#1 im not sure if russia directly encourages them. More likely it would have been indirect through Iran, a mutual ally.
@freemo @kravietz > In the end anyone taking **either** side as the good guy is morally corrupt. The hammas are evil, the IDF is evil, full stop.
Would you be willing to admit that one side is worse than the other?