I think you are all mistaken by holding the idea that Israel gives a shit about the Palestinians at all. They don't want to achieve peace, they want to achieve not being attacked and who the fuck cares what happens to the Palestinians before, during or after.
Any sort of compromise or peace is pointless because it's a concession to actually giving up their own goals with no upside for them.
There is still a huge amount of support in Israel for the creation of a Palestinian State. The problem is that Israel spent much of the 90s working towards that peace and ended up with the Second Intifada. From the perspective of most Israelis, they were willing to make concessions for peace and ended up paying for it with more bombings and killings than ever before. Most still would like to see the Oslo Process, Clinton Paramters, etc. play out, but they have zero trust in the Palestinian Authority to stop the violence on their end, especially when the Gaza Strip is outside of Ramallah's de facto control.
Much the same attitude exists on the Palestinian side. The two state solution is widely accepted, but when settlement expansion continues and Bibi continues to be a obstructionist dick, there is nearly zero faith put in Israel.
At the governmental level, that sentiment exists only in that it results in no attacks anymore.
Frankly, all evidence seems to indicate Israel just wants the Palestinians to shut up and go away. They don't want them dead, they just want them to stop getting in Israel's way. Any peace agreement seems destined for failure because it involves Israel giving up something they want.
Yeah, I don't think the people currently running Israel get that crippling Gaza the way they are is going to achieve anything.
My personal theory is that Israel is purposely making palestinians hate them, to instigate them to violence so they can go "See, this Palestinians just want to get rid of Israel" and use that as they're excuse to invade and claim the land for their own.
Read someone in a red toyota got disintegrated, for being islamic jihad.
This is at the point where I posit that Israel just decided to blow up a car and decided a reason for it after the fact.
A three story house got completely razed by a bomb. The neighbours cited the residents names instantly to reporters, four children and four women (one 81 years old). 12 inside all dead.
No neighbour had ever heard of the Hamas member name cited as the reason for the airstrike.
This is the point in these discussiosn where I inevitably begin to feel uncomfortable with the narrative some people try to construct. The Israeli government is monstrous, but it is not headed by a mustache-twirling villain. It is headed by a greying man in a suit, who cares little about anyone who cannot vote for him. Whatever crimes it does, it does for geopolitical purposes. shryke pretty much got it right.
Sort of. First of all, leaders have a tendency to highlight emotional stinging points to motivate their populace and armed forces. The strategy might be geopolitical, but that doesn't mean all the strikes are. Bibi isn't the one doing targeting, a 20 year old that's angry/worried for their family is.
And I don't think the government is interested in not being attacked though. Both Israel and the foreign community know they won't be allowed to flatten everything and they certainly can't occupy the territory effectively. Weapons-wise, this is a setback for Hamas but organizationally it's causing them to militarize again and is strengthening their motivation.
I don't think this is just a blunt method of stopping the attacks and I don't think this is for the elections (although it'll help.) I think there's a lot more levels to this than we realize, and it involves Egypt or Iran. Unless you truly believe they'd "had enough", it just doesn't make sense on the surface.
It helps to keep in mind that the Israeli government, like any other, is made out of people. These people have their own ambitions and biases, some are benign, others incompetent, others power-hungry. There will be a variety of justifications and goals for actions like this, some of them contradicting others.
I think you're right that this concerns Egypt and Iran though. With Egypt, this can be seen as a sort of test. They had been fairly reliable allies under Mubarak, so now this can be Israel testing the waters and seeing just where Egypt stands. Morsi talks about supporting the Palestinians, but like Mubarak is more keen on maintaining the status quo with Israel. And all of that can be seen as laying groundwork for a confrontation with Iran.
If Israel were to attack Iranian nuclear sites, or convince the US to do so, Iran would retaliate. Given the distances involved, Iran would have a pretty hard time with that; it has long range missiles, but it doesn't have anything close to the same abilities as Israel in that regard. What it does have are proxies that border Israel, and some general support from the Arab street. In a war with Iran, Israel can expect a war with Hezbollah to go with it. The civil war in Syria has already made this less likely. If Assad falls then Hezbollah becomes isolated, and is anyway getting plenty of flak for remaining loyal to Assad. It might also expect trouble with the Palestinians. Well, Gaza is now nipped in the bud, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egpyt isn't doing anything crazy, so things seem ok on this side as well.
I don't think this was the motivation for the current violence, but I'm sure there are military planners in Israel who are thinking along these lines. I consider an Israeli attack on Iran to be unlikely; but only because Israel can expect retaliation on its own borders. If Israel can mitigate that threat, then an attack on Iran becomes a lot more likely.
I think you are all mistaken by holding the idea that Israel gives a shit about the Palestinians at all. They don't want to achieve peace, they want to achieve not being attacked and who the fuck cares what happens to the Palestinians before, during or after.
Any sort of compromise or peace is pointless because it's a concession to actually giving up their own goals with no upside for them.
There is still a huge amount of support in Israel for the creation of a Palestinian State. The problem is that Israel spent much of the 90s working towards that peace and ended up with the Second Intifada. From the perspective of most Israelis, they were willing to make concessions for peace and ended up paying for it with more bombings and killings than ever before. Most still would like to see the Oslo Process, Clinton Paramters, etc. play out, but they have zero trust in the Palestinian Authority to stop the violence on their end, especially when the Gaza Strip is outside of Ramallah's de facto control.
Much the same attitude exists on the Palestinian side. The two state solution is widely accepted, but when settlement expansion continues and Bibi continues to be a obstructionist dick, there is nearly zero faith put in Israel.
At the governmental level, that sentiment exists only in that it results in no attacks anymore.
Frankly, all evidence seems to indicate Israel just wants the Palestinians to shut up and go away. They don't want them dead, they just want them to stop getting in Israel's way. Any peace agreement seems destined for failure because it involves Israel giving up something they want.
I think this is exactly right, but I also don't think it is so unreasonable. Imagine how frustrating it must be to have conquered a people, have vastly superior resources and military strength to them, but still be stuck with them sitting there being a thorn in your side, attacking your people. And then on top of that, you also have your citizens clamoring for the land which you conquered but can't use. It's untenable. Has there ever been a nation in history that just allowed this type of situation to last forever? We faced it in the US, and we all know the outcome here.
Here is the thing. If you conquer and they become your subject or are otherwise integrated, great. But what do you do when they continue to resist? You already conquered them. You don't want to go for a scorched earth tactic, but if you don't, then what are you left with? A weaker power who you are unable to protect your people from?
Gaza has come under renewed bombardment from Israel, as agreement on a ceasefire to end a week of violence remains elusive.
At least 20 Palestinians were reported to have been killed on Tuesday. Two Israelis - a soldier and a civilian - were killed in rocket strikes.
Earlier, Egyptian and Palestinian officials said a ceasefire would shortly be announced at talks in Cairo.
But Israeli spokesman Mark Regev told the BBC a deal was not yet done.
And late on Tuesday, a senior Hamas official, Izzat Risheq, said a deal might not be reached until the morning.
Extra time to get some bombing in!
Separately, Hamas fighters summarily executed six people on Tuesday afternoon, accusing them of being Israeli informers.
One eyewitness told AFP news agency: "Gunmen in a minibus pulled up in the neighbourhood, pushed six men out and shot them without leaving the vehicle."
And that is some rough stuff too. Though if they didn't leave the vehicle I wonder how the guy knew it was Hamas. Regardless, I'm sure there is a bit of purging going on inside Gaza.
Here is the thing. If you conquer and they become your subject or are otherwise integrated, great. But what do you do when they continue to resist? You already conquered them. You don't want to go for a scorched earth tactic, but if you don't, then what are you left with? A weaker power who you are unable to protect your people from?
Maybe it means that whole "conquest" idea wasn't what it was cracked up to be?
I think you are all mistaken by holding the idea that Israel gives a shit about the Palestinians at all. They don't want to achieve peace, they want to achieve not being attacked and who the fuck cares what happens to the Palestinians before, during or after.
Any sort of compromise or peace is pointless because it's a concession to actually giving up their own goals with no upside for them.
There is still a huge amount of support in Israel for the creation of a Palestinian State. The problem is that Israel spent much of the 90s working towards that peace and ended up with the Second Intifada. From the perspective of most Israelis, they were willing to make concessions for peace and ended up paying for it with more bombings and killings than ever before. Most still would like to see the Oslo Process, Clinton Paramters, etc. play out, but they have zero trust in the Palestinian Authority to stop the violence on their end, especially when the Gaza Strip is outside of Ramallah's de facto control.
Much the same attitude exists on the Palestinian side. The two state solution is widely accepted, but when settlement expansion continues and Bibi continues to be a obstructionist dick, there is nearly zero faith put in Israel.
At the governmental level, that sentiment exists only in that it results in no attacks anymore.
Frankly, all evidence seems to indicate Israel just wants the Palestinians to shut up and go away. They don't want them dead, they just want them to stop getting in Israel's way. Any peace agreement seems destined for failure because it involves Israel giving up something they want.
I think this is exactly right, but I also don't think it is so unreasonable. Imagine how frustrating it must be to have conquered a people, have vastly superior resources and military strength to them, but still be stuck with them sitting there being a thorn in your side, attacking your people. And then on top of that, you also have your citizens clamoring for the land which you conquered but can't use. It's untenable. Has there ever been a nation in history that just allowed this type of situation to last forever? We faced it in the US, and we all know the outcome here.
Israel is highly unusual in keeping its borders purposefully vague. I don't think any other nation state has done that; they usually like to have their borders defined to the inch.
Why doesn't the Israel go ahead and do a complete, unilateral, forced relocation of the Palestinians out of Israel? Everyone in the region already hates the Israelis. Most of the US and European leaders would probably go a long with it, at most expressing token vocal disapproval. Nothing actually harmful to Israel can get past the US in the UN. If war is declared by Jordan or Egypt, it will probably end with Israel claiming even more territory for itself, again.
In a hundred years, everyone will just blow it off like we do in the US with the Native Americans or the Turks do with the Armenians.
Though, I guess its easier to blow up terrorists (and "terrorists") in a territory that is technically yours than technically in another country.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I think you are all mistaken by holding the idea that Israel gives a shit about the Palestinians at all. They don't want to achieve peace, they want to achieve not being attacked and who the fuck cares what happens to the Palestinians before, during or after.
Any sort of compromise or peace is pointless because it's a concession to actually giving up their own goals with no upside for them.
There is still a huge amount of support in Israel for the creation of a Palestinian State. The problem is that Israel spent much of the 90s working towards that peace and ended up with the Second Intifada. From the perspective of most Israelis, they were willing to make concessions for peace and ended up paying for it with more bombings and killings than ever before. Most still would like to see the Oslo Process, Clinton Paramters, etc. play out, but they have zero trust in the Palestinian Authority to stop the violence on their end, especially when the Gaza Strip is outside of Ramallah's de facto control.
Much the same attitude exists on the Palestinian side. The two state solution is widely accepted, but when settlement expansion continues and Bibi continues to be a obstructionist dick, there is nearly zero faith put in Israel.
At the governmental level, that sentiment exists only in that it results in no attacks anymore.
Frankly, all evidence seems to indicate Israel just wants the Palestinians to shut up and go away. They don't want them dead, they just want them to stop getting in Israel's way. Any peace agreement seems destined for failure because it involves Israel giving up something they want.
I think this is exactly right, but I also don't think it is so unreasonable. Imagine how frustrating it must be to have conquered a people, have vastly superior resources and military strength to them, but still be stuck with them sitting there being a thorn in your side, attacking your people. And then on top of that, you also have your citizens clamoring for the land which you conquered but can't use. It's untenable. Has there ever been a nation in history that just allowed this type of situation to last forever? We faced it in the US, and we all know the outcome here.
Right. Israel has stuck the Palestinians in this horrible in between cause they really want all the benefits of wiping out another culture and taking their land, they just don't want to actually do the horrible wiping out part. So the whole situation staggers along at half-measures.
Israel is an explicitly colonialist state with the "bad luck" to have been created right before the time when everyone realised how fucking monstrous that kind of thing was.
I have this crazy theory that you could make a secular one-state solution work in regard to the Israel-Palestine dilemma.
Neither gets more than the other, because they'd literally be in the same fucking country. No genocidal tendencies required, just kick non-integrating members of the new "Semite Society" in the nuts.
Alright and in this next scene all the animals have AIDS.
Why doesn't the Israel go ahead and do a complete, unilateral, forced relocation of the Palestinians out of Israel? Everyone in the region already hates the Israelis. Most of the US and European leaders would probably go a long with it, at most expressing token vocal disapproval. Nothing actually harmful to Israel can get past the US in the UN. If war is declared by Jordan or Egypt, it will probably end with Israel claiming even more territory for itself, again.
In a hundred years, everyone will just blow it off like we do in the US with the Native Americans or the Turks do with the Armenians.
Though, I guess its easier to blow up terrorists (and "terrorists") in a territory that is technically yours than technically in another country.
Where would the Israelis force them to? No one wants the Palestinian people.
I have this crazy theory that you could make a secular one-state solution work in regard to the Israel-Palestine dilemma.
Neither gets more than the other, because they'd literally be in the same fucking country. No genocidal tendencies required, just kick non-integrating members of the new "Semite Society" in the nuts.
Demographics mean Israel would never accept.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I have this crazy theory that you could make a secular one-state solution work in regard to the Israel-Palestine dilemma.
Neither gets more than the other, because they'd literally be in the same fucking country. No genocidal tendencies required, just kick non-integrating members of the new "Semite Society" in the nuts.
This is ideal, and something I muttered to myself everything my friend from Lebanon would talk about her politics.
But.
And this is the most important part.
You can't have a secular government if you can't get the people in the country to sign onto it.
Why doesn't the Israel go ahead and do a complete, unilateral, forced relocation of the Palestinians out of Israel? Everyone in the region already hates the Israelis. Most of the US and European leaders would probably go a long with it, at most expressing token vocal disapproval. Nothing actually harmful to Israel can get past the US in the UN. If war is declared by Jordan or Egypt, it will probably end with Israel claiming even more territory for itself, again.
In a hundred years, everyone will just blow it off like we do in the US with the Native Americans or the Turks do with the Armenians.
Though, I guess its easier to blow up terrorists (and "terrorists") in a territory that is technically yours than technically in another country.
Because people frown on that shit noawadays. That's pretty much the only reason.
Instead, it's sorta happening slowly. People whine less about that apparently.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think you are all mistaken by holding the idea that Israel gives a shit about the Palestinians at all. They don't want to achieve peace, they want to achieve not being attacked and who the fuck cares what happens to the Palestinians before, during or after.
Any sort of compromise or peace is pointless because it's a concession to actually giving up their own goals with no upside for them.
There is still a huge amount of support in Israel for the creation of a Palestinian State. The problem is that Israel spent much of the 90s working towards that peace and ended up with the Second Intifada. From the perspective of most Israelis, they were willing to make concessions for peace and ended up paying for it with more bombings and killings than ever before. Most still would like to see the Oslo Process, Clinton Paramters, etc. play out, but they have zero trust in the Palestinian Authority to stop the violence on their end, especially when the Gaza Strip is outside of Ramallah's de facto control.
Much the same attitude exists on the Palestinian side. The two state solution is widely accepted, but when settlement expansion continues and Bibi continues to be a obstructionist dick, there is nearly zero faith put in Israel.
At the governmental level, that sentiment exists only in that it results in no attacks anymore.
Frankly, all evidence seems to indicate Israel just wants the Palestinians to shut up and go away. They don't want them dead, they just want them to stop getting in Israel's way. Any peace agreement seems destined for failure because it involves Israel giving up something they want.
I think this is exactly right, but I also don't think it is so unreasonable. Imagine how frustrating it must be to have conquered a people, have vastly superior resources and military strength to them, but still be stuck with them sitting there being a thorn in your side, attacking your people. And then on top of that, you also have your citizens clamoring for the land which you conquered but can't use. It's untenable. Has there ever been a nation in history that just allowed this type of situation to last forever? We faced it in the US, and we all know the outcome here.
Right. Israel has stuck the Palestinians in this horrible in between cause they really want all the benefits of wiping out another culture and taking their land, they just don't want to actually do the horrible wiping out part. So the whole situation staggers along at half-measures.
Israel is an explicitly colonialist state with the "bad luck" to have been created right before the time when everyone realised how fucking monstrous that kind of thing was.
Exactly. They just want them gone, they don't want to kill them all or put them in camps of ship them to another country though. It's a real problem.
I have this crazy theory that you could make a secular one-state solution work in regard to the Israel-Palestine dilemma.
Neither gets more than the other, because they'd literally be in the same fucking country. No genocidal tendencies required, just kick non-integrating members of the new "Semite Society" in the nuts.
Agreed. A country cannot be both ethnic and democratic. A two-state solution is unlikely to end the fighting. The newly found Palestinian state will be in a terrible economic condition for at least a few decades, and combined with the country's enmity towards Israel it is likely to serve as a launchpad for continued terrorist operations by idealists. Retaliation against an actual sovereign nation attacking you is going to be significantly more severe. While better than the status quo, this solution still seems inferior to recognizing the Palestinians as equal citizens and integrating them into country. If we are in the habit of giving countries their old name back, the state can even be renamed Canaan. This will require full secularization of the government and giving up the zionist ideals, though, and so will require a significant shift in Israeli social consensus to work. Given that the fundies plain out outbreed the secularists by a factor of 2~ AND are the classical swing vote, I honestly don't know how to make something like that happen.
EDIT: @Daedalus: The iron dome is just the manifestation of the unmatched collective ability of Tel Avivians to not give a single fuck about anything.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
I think the Syrian part of the OP needs more mention of ethnic Kurds? I keep hearing about them leaving for Iraqi Kurdistan, and also that the Kurdish angle was part of why Turkey was slow to side with the Rebels.
I have this crazy theory that you could make a secular one-state solution work in regard to the Israel-Palestine dilemma.
Neither gets more than the other, because they'd literally be in the same fucking country. No genocidal tendencies required, just kick non-integrating members of the new "Semite Society" in the nuts.
Demographics mean Israel would never accept.
Balls fucker ass and shitcocks, don't make me depressed man.
Alright and in this next scene all the animals have AIDS.
Agreed. A country cannot be both ethnic and democratic.
I disagree. It is more common for a country to be at least somewhat ethnic based explicitly pluralistic. France has government agencies dedicated to keeping the country at artificially high levels of Frenchness.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If you were playing civilization and were winding down a war with your foe, who was now greatly diminished, but close to your cities, you would do one of 3 things: (1) conquer them all and raze them, (2) conquer them all and pointy work to pacifying the population while the convert or (3) agreeing to a peace treaty in exchange for many concessions. You would never let the war continue with them keeping some cities and still being hostile to you, let them build soldiers and attack you, and not finish the job by taking over the rest of the cities. This tactic is just as poor in real life as in the game.
If you were playing civilization and were winding down a war with your foe, who was now greatly diminished, but close to your cities, you would do one of 3 things: (1) conquer them all and raze them, (2) conquer them all and pointy work to pacifying the population while the convert or (3) agreeing to a peace treaty in exchange for many concessions. You would never let the war continue with them keeping some cities and still being hostile to you, let them build soldiers and attack you, and not finish the job by taking over the rest of the cities. This tactic is just as poor in real life as in the game.
The Palestinian leaders would gladly leave the Israelis in peace for five turns in exchange for the secret of Currency!
If you were playing civilization and were winding down a war with your foe, who was now greatly diminished, but close to your cities, you would do one of 3 things: (1) conquer them all and raze them, (2) conquer them all and pointy work to pacifying the population while the convert or (3) agreeing to a peace treaty in exchange for many concessions. You would never let the war continue with them keeping some cities and still being hostile to you, let them build soldiers and attack you, and not finish the job by taking over the rest of the cities. This tactic is just as poor in real life as in the game.
This isn't a game. Millions of lives are at stake. Too many have died and had their lives ruined by this never ending tragedy.
Why doesn't the Israel go ahead and do a complete, unilateral, forced relocation of the Palestinians out of Israel? Everyone in the region already hates the Israelis. Most of the US and European leaders would probably go a long with it, at most expressing token vocal disapproval. Nothing actually harmful to Israel can get past the US in the UN. If war is declared by Jordan or Egypt, it will probably end with Israel claiming even more territory for itself, again.
In a hundred years, everyone will just blow it off like we do in the US with the Native Americans or the Turks do with the Armenians.
Though, I guess its easier to blow up terrorists (and "terrorists") in a territory that is technically yours than technically in another country.
Because its a war crime, specifically its ethnic cleansing. Its considered a crime against humanity. Its a violation of the Geneva and Hague conventions, carry no statue of limitation or limits of jurisdiction. Any person participating in such a systematic act, from the lowest of soldier to the prime minister of Israel would be held legally responsible for their acts for the rest of their life. We are still trying to hold trials for prison guards from the Holocaust over 70 years after the fact. And the Holocaust is a big part of why this is a big no no.
That's the theory of moving the Palestinians out of the Occupied territories. The reality of moving them would involve probably tens of thousands of deaths, would take several months, cost billions of dollars in logistics, would spark massive round the clock unrest all over the world, would force pretty much every muslim country to declare war and force the US government to break ties with Israel. There would probably also be massive unrest within Israel, with military units mutinying and the economy collapsing completly.
Net result: Your simple solution would destroy Israel more thoroughly then a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv and result in a second Jewish Diaspora as Jews that oppose these actions would leave Israel in droves as political refugees.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
+2
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Why doesn't the Israel go ahead and do a complete, unilateral, forced relocation of the Palestinians out of Israel? Everyone in the region already hates the Israelis. Most of the US and European leaders would probably go a long with it, at most expressing token vocal disapproval. Nothing actually harmful to Israel can get past the US in the UN. If war is declared by Jordan or Egypt, it will probably end with Israel claiming even more territory for itself, again.
In a hundred years, everyone will just blow it off like we do in the US with the Native Americans or the Turks do with the Armenians.
Though, I guess its easier to blow up terrorists (and "terrorists") in a territory that is technically yours than technically in another country.
Because its a war crime, specifically its ethnic cleansing. Its considered a crime against humanity. Its a violation of the Geneva and Hague conventions, carry no statue of limitation or limits of jurisdiction. Any person participating in such a systematic act, from the lowest of soldier to the prime minister of Israel would be held legally responsible for their acts for the rest of their life. We are still trying to hold trials for prison guards from the Holocaust over 70 years after the fact. And the Holocaust is a big part of why this is a big no no.
That's the theory of moving the Palestinians out of the Occupied territories. The reality of moving them would involve probably tens of thousands of deaths, would take several months, cost billions of dollars in logistics, would spark massive round the clock unrest all over the world, would force pretty much every muslim country to declare war and force the US government to break ties with Israel. There would probably also be massive unrest within Israel, with military units mutinying and the economy collapsing completly.
Net result: Your simple solution would destroy Israel more thoroughly then a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv and result in a second Jewish Diaspora as Jews that oppose these actions would leave Israel in droves as political refugees.
Do you really think it would be that extreme. I mean, I regard the US internment of the Japanese as the worst thing the US has ever done, but we got over the imprisonment and systematic robbing of US citizens carried out by our military. I think Israel could survive the relocation of a people who attack their civilians in a regular basis. Also, don't forget how hungry people are for the land.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Why doesn't the Israel go ahead and do a complete, unilateral, forced relocation of the Palestinians out of Israel? Everyone in the region already hates the Israelis. Most of the US and European leaders would probably go a long with it, at most expressing token vocal disapproval. Nothing actually harmful to Israel can get past the US in the UN. If war is declared by Jordan or Egypt, it will probably end with Israel claiming even more territory for itself, again.
In a hundred years, everyone will just blow it off like we do in the US with the Native Americans or the Turks do with the Armenians.
Though, I guess its easier to blow up terrorists (and "terrorists") in a territory that is technically yours than technically in another country.
Because its a war crime, specifically its ethnic cleansing. Its considered a crime against humanity. Its a violation of the Geneva and Hague conventions, carry no statue of limitation or limits of jurisdiction. Any person participating in such a systematic act, from the lowest of soldier to the prime minister of Israel would be held legally responsible for their acts for the rest of their life. We are still trying to hold trials for prison guards from the Holocaust over 70 years after the fact. And the Holocaust is a big part of why this is a big no no.
That's the theory of moving the Palestinians out of the Occupied territories. The reality of moving them would involve probably tens of thousands of deaths, would take several months, cost billions of dollars in logistics, would spark massive round the clock unrest all over the world, would force pretty much every muslim country to declare war and force the US government to break ties with Israel. There would probably also be massive unrest within Israel, with military units mutinying and the economy collapsing completly.
Net result: Your simple solution would destroy Israel more thoroughly then a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv and result in a second Jewish Diaspora as Jews that oppose these actions would leave Israel in droves as political refugees.
Do you really think it would be that extreme. I mean, I regard the US internment of the Japanese as the worst thing the US has ever done, but we got over the imprisonment and systematic robbing of US citizens carried out by our military. I think Israel could survive the relocation of a people who attack their civilians in a regular basis. Also, don't forget how hungry people are for the land.
The proper comparison isn't internment. It's the relocation of Native Americans.
But I already know your stance on that and have NO desire to rehash it.
But that is the proper comparison. And it won't work for the same exact reasons.
I think the Syrian part of the OP needs more mention of ethnic Kurds? I keep hearing about them leaving for Iraqi Kurdistan, and also that the Kurdish angle was part of why Turkey was slow to side with the Rebels.
I'll do a write-up on the Kurds next time they appear on my radar. I haven't found they've played much role in the Syrian civil war, directly or indirectly. While Syria does have a Kurdish population, they're mostly in Turkey and Iraq, with some in Iran as well. They almost have their own country in northern Iraq now, they are highly autonomous and highly authoritarian. I suspect it is in the Iraqi context that I'll end up writing a bit about them.
Really, there is all kinds of stuff I could write about Syria. How its causing internecine fighting in Lebanon (yes, again). How thousands of refugees have fled to Jordan, which is itself starting to look pretty unstable. How Syria's ruins, which date from Roman ages and before, are being devastated in the war. The huge role Qatar and Saudi Arabia are playing. Etc.
I'd love to write about all these things, but it would end up being a book. A rather crappy book I'm sure, so I'll keep it simple for now.
Here is the thing. If you conquer and they become your subject or are otherwise integrated, great. But what do you do when they continue to resist? You already conquered them. You don't want to go for a scorched earth tactic, but if you don't, then what are you left with? A weaker power who you are unable to protect your people from?
Maybe it means that whole "conquest" idea wasn't what it was cracked up to be?
While this is not incorrect, in of itself, it's worth nothing that this does not suddenly mean "OMG! Unmanned drones are so cool and fix ALL PROBLEMS EVERYWHERE!" either.
I'm saying this as a general warning, not to anyone specifically.
Why doesn't the Israel go ahead and do a complete, unilateral, forced relocation of the Palestinians out of Israel? Everyone in the region already hates the Israelis. Most of the US and European leaders would probably go a long with it, at most expressing token vocal disapproval. Nothing actually harmful to Israel can get past the US in the UN. If war is declared by Jordan or Egypt, it will probably end with Israel claiming even more territory for itself, again.
In a hundred years, everyone will just blow it off like we do in the US with the Native Americans or the Turks do with the Armenians.
Though, I guess its easier to blow up terrorists (and "terrorists") in a territory that is technically yours than technically in another country.
Because its a war crime, specifically its ethnic cleansing. Its considered a crime against humanity. Its a violation of the Geneva and Hague conventions, carry no statue of limitation or limits of jurisdiction. Any person participating in such a systematic act, from the lowest of soldier to the prime minister of Israel would be held legally responsible for their acts for the rest of their life. We are still trying to hold trials for prison guards from the Holocaust over 70 years after the fact. And the Holocaust is a big part of why this is a big no no.
That's the theory of moving the Palestinians out of the Occupied territories. The reality of moving them would involve probably tens of thousands of deaths, would take several months, cost billions of dollars in logistics, would spark massive round the clock unrest all over the world, would force pretty much every muslim country to declare war and force the US government to break ties with Israel. There would probably also be massive unrest within Israel, with military units mutinying and the economy collapsing completly.
Net result: Your simple solution would destroy Israel more thoroughly then a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv and result in a second Jewish Diaspora as Jews that oppose these actions would leave Israel in droves as political refugees.
Do you really think it would be that extreme. I mean, I regard the US internment of the Japanese as the worst thing the US has ever done, but we got over the imprisonment and systematic robbing of US citizens carried out by our military. I think Israel could survive the relocation of a people who attack their civilians in a regular basis. Also, don't forget how hungry people are for the land.
The proper comparison isn't internment. It's the relocation of Native Americans.
But I already know your stance on that and have NO desire to rehash it.
But that is the proper comparison. And it won't work for the same exact reasons.
I was going to say "direct complicity and participation in indigenous genocide" and "deliberate endorsement of chattel slavery of tens of millions."
Or maybe "bombing the the breadbasket of Southeast Asia so bad almost the entire country flooded."
These are not particular things unique to the United States (though the chattel slavery thing is pretty rare on that scale), but they're pretty bad, and I do think they edge out Japanese internment.
Synthesis on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Why doesn't the Israel go ahead and do a complete, unilateral, forced relocation of the Palestinians out of Israel? Everyone in the region already hates the Israelis. Most of the US and European leaders would probably go a long with it, at most expressing token vocal disapproval. Nothing actually harmful to Israel can get past the US in the UN. If war is declared by Jordan or Egypt, it will probably end with Israel claiming even more territory for itself, again.
In a hundred years, everyone will just blow it off like we do in the US with the Native Americans or the Turks do with the Armenians.
Though, I guess its easier to blow up terrorists (and "terrorists") in a territory that is technically yours than technically in another country.
Because its a war crime, specifically its ethnic cleansing. Its considered a crime against humanity. Its a violation of the Geneva and Hague conventions, carry no statue of limitation or limits of jurisdiction. Any person participating in such a systematic act, from the lowest of soldier to the prime minister of Israel would be held legally responsible for their acts for the rest of their life. We are still trying to hold trials for prison guards from the Holocaust over 70 years after the fact. And the Holocaust is a big part of why this is a big no no.
That's the theory of moving the Palestinians out of the Occupied territories. The reality of moving them would involve probably tens of thousands of deaths, would take several months, cost billions of dollars in logistics, would spark massive round the clock unrest all over the world, would force pretty much every muslim country to declare war and force the US government to break ties with Israel. There would probably also be massive unrest within Israel, with military units mutinying and the economy collapsing completly.
Net result: Your simple solution would destroy Israel more thoroughly then a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv and result in a second Jewish Diaspora as Jews that oppose these actions would leave Israel in droves as political refugees.
Do you really think it would be that extreme. I mean, I regard the US internment of the Japanese as the worst thing the US has ever done, but we got over the imprisonment and systematic robbing of US citizens carried out by our military. I think Israel could survive the relocation of a people who attack their civilians in a regular basis. Also, don't forget how hungry people are for the land.
The proper comparison isn't internment. It's the relocation of Native Americans.
But I already know your stance on that and have NO desire to rehash it.
But that is the proper comparison. And it won't work for the same exact reasons.
I don't want to have that discussion either, but I question your assertion that it did not "work.". The end result was the conquered people removed from the land, and isolated from the American people. If those are the Israeli goals, then I think relocation could well be successful in achieving them.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Here is the thing. If you conquer and they become your subject or are otherwise integrated, great. But what do you do when they continue to resist? You already conquered them. You don't want to go for a scorched earth tactic, but if you don't, then what are you left with? A weaker power who you are unable to protect your people from?
Maybe it means that whole "conquest" idea wasn't what it was cracked up to be?
While this is not incorrect, in of itself, it's worth nothing that this does not suddenly mean "OMG! Unmanned drones are so cool and fix ALL PROBLEMS EVERYWHERE!" either.
I'm saying this as a general warning, not to anyone specifically.
Why doesn't the Israel go ahead and do a complete, unilateral, forced relocation of the Palestinians out of Israel? Everyone in the region already hates the Israelis. Most of the US and European leaders would probably go a long with it, at most expressing token vocal disapproval. Nothing actually harmful to Israel can get past the US in the UN. If war is declared by Jordan or Egypt, it will probably end with Israel claiming even more territory for itself, again.
In a hundred years, everyone will just blow it off like we do in the US with the Native Americans or the Turks do with the Armenians.
Though, I guess its easier to blow up terrorists (and "terrorists") in a territory that is technically yours than technically in another country.
Because its a war crime, specifically its ethnic cleansing. Its considered a crime against humanity. Its a violation of the Geneva and Hague conventions, carry no statue of limitation or limits of jurisdiction. Any person participating in such a systematic act, from the lowest of soldier to the prime minister of Israel would be held legally responsible for their acts for the rest of their life. We are still trying to hold trials for prison guards from the Holocaust over 70 years after the fact. And the Holocaust is a big part of why this is a big no no.
That's the theory of moving the Palestinians out of the Occupied territories. The reality of moving them would involve probably tens of thousands of deaths, would take several months, cost billions of dollars in logistics, would spark massive round the clock unrest all over the world, would force pretty much every muslim country to declare war and force the US government to break ties with Israel. There would probably also be massive unrest within Israel, with military units mutinying and the economy collapsing completly.
Net result: Your simple solution would destroy Israel more thoroughly then a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv and result in a second Jewish Diaspora as Jews that oppose these actions would leave Israel in droves as political refugees.
Do you really think it would be that extreme. I mean, I regard the US internment of the Japanese as the worst thing the US has ever done, but we got over the imprisonment and systematic robbing of US citizens carried out by our military. I think Israel could survive the relocation of a people who attack their civilians in a regular basis. Also, don't forget how hungry people are for the land.
The proper comparison isn't internment. It's the relocation of Native Americans.
But I already know your stance on that and have NO desire to rehash it.
But that is the proper comparison. And it won't work for the same exact reasons.
I was going to say "direct complicity and participation in indigenous genocide" and "deliberate endorsement of chattel slavery of tens of millions."
Or maybe "bombing the the breadbasket of Southeast Asia so bad almost the entire country flooded."
These are not particular things unique to the United States (though the chattel slavery thing is pretty rare on that scale), but they're pretty bad, and I do think they edge out Japanese internment.
None of those other acts involved the use of US military force against US citizens or the government otherwise directly ordering that a portion of its citizens be persecuted based on race. I know there were Indians that were citizens but were still forced to relocate and I think that is horrible, but at least it was illegal and a violation of law when that happened, not the direct, intentional mistreatment of US citizens by the US government.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Why doesn't the Israel go ahead and do a complete, unilateral, forced relocation of the Palestinians out of Israel? Everyone in the region already hates the Israelis. Most of the US and European leaders would probably go a long with it, at most expressing token vocal disapproval. Nothing actually harmful to Israel can get past the US in the UN. If war is declared by Jordan or Egypt, it will probably end with Israel claiming even more territory for itself, again.
In a hundred years, everyone will just blow it off like we do in the US with the Native Americans or the Turks do with the Armenians.
Though, I guess its easier to blow up terrorists (and "terrorists") in a territory that is technically yours than technically in another country.
Because its a war crime, specifically its ethnic cleansing. Its considered a crime against humanity. Its a violation of the Geneva and Hague conventions, carry no statue of limitation or limits of jurisdiction. Any person participating in such a systematic act, from the lowest of soldier to the prime minister of Israel would be held legally responsible for their acts for the rest of their life. We are still trying to hold trials for prison guards from the Holocaust over 70 years after the fact. And the Holocaust is a big part of why this is a big no no.
That's the theory of moving the Palestinians out of the Occupied territories. The reality of moving them would involve probably tens of thousands of deaths, would take several months, cost billions of dollars in logistics, would spark massive round the clock unrest all over the world, would force pretty much every muslim country to declare war and force the US government to break ties with Israel. There would probably also be massive unrest within Israel, with military units mutinying and the economy collapsing completly.
Net result: Your simple solution would destroy Israel more thoroughly then a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv and result in a second Jewish Diaspora as Jews that oppose these actions would leave Israel in droves as political refugees.
Do you really think it would be that extreme. I mean, I regard the US internment of the Japanese as the worst thing the US has ever done, but we got over the imprisonment and systematic robbing of US citizens carried out by our military. I think Israel could survive the relocation of a people who attack their civilians in a regular basis. Also, don't forget how hungry people are for the land.
The proper comparison isn't internment. It's the relocation of Native Americans.
But I already know your stance on that and have NO desire to rehash it.
But that is the proper comparison. And it won't work for the same exact reasons.
Oh, it would totally work.
It would just be, you know, fucking monstrous.
I mean, the relocation of Native Americans was a smashing success for European settlers. We own virtually all their land. They don't fight back.
It was also an atrocity.
PS - the Japanese internment is a bad comparison because that only turned out well cause we all released them at the end of it and, more or less, let them go back to their lives. I don't think the "idea" here is to send all of Gaza on a vacation for a few years and then send them back to Israel.
I can't remember for certain, but doesn't "Forced removal of a people by a sovereign nation state" fall under one of the internationally recognized methods of attempted genocide?
I can't remember for certain, but doesn't "Forced removal of a people by a sovereign nation state" fall under one of the internationally recognized methods of attempted genocide?
I believe it's technically Ethnic Cleansing, but don't quote me on that.
Not that Ethnic Cleansing is any less horrible or illegal.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It works if your goal is "get these people out of my hair."
It does not work if your goal is "peaceful resolution to the problem of sharing land."
Here is the thing. If you conquer and they become your subject or are otherwise integrated, great. But what do you do when they continue to resist? You already conquered them. You don't want to go for a scorched earth tactic, but if you don't, then what are you left with? A weaker power who you are unable to protect your people from?
Maybe it means that whole "conquest" idea wasn't what it was cracked up to be?
While this is not incorrect, in of itself, it's worth nothing that this does not suddenly mean "OMG! Unmanned drones are so cool and fix ALL PROBLEMS EVERYWHERE!" either.
I'm saying this as a general warning, not to anyone specifically.
Why doesn't the Israel go ahead and do a complete, unilateral, forced relocation of the Palestinians out of Israel? Everyone in the region already hates the Israelis. Most of the US and European leaders would probably go a long with it, at most expressing token vocal disapproval. Nothing actually harmful to Israel can get past the US in the UN. If war is declared by Jordan or Egypt, it will probably end with Israel claiming even more territory for itself, again.
In a hundred years, everyone will just blow it off like we do in the US with the Native Americans or the Turks do with the Armenians.
Though, I guess its easier to blow up terrorists (and "terrorists") in a territory that is technically yours than technically in another country.
Because its a war crime, specifically its ethnic cleansing. Its considered a crime against humanity. Its a violation of the Geneva and Hague conventions, carry no statue of limitation or limits of jurisdiction. Any person participating in such a systematic act, from the lowest of soldier to the prime minister of Israel would be held legally responsible for their acts for the rest of their life. We are still trying to hold trials for prison guards from the Holocaust over 70 years after the fact. And the Holocaust is a big part of why this is a big no no.
That's the theory of moving the Palestinians out of the Occupied territories. The reality of moving them would involve probably tens of thousands of deaths, would take several months, cost billions of dollars in logistics, would spark massive round the clock unrest all over the world, would force pretty much every muslim country to declare war and force the US government to break ties with Israel. There would probably also be massive unrest within Israel, with military units mutinying and the economy collapsing completly.
Net result: Your simple solution would destroy Israel more thoroughly then a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv and result in a second Jewish Diaspora as Jews that oppose these actions would leave Israel in droves as political refugees.
Do you really think it would be that extreme. I mean, I regard the US internment of the Japanese as the worst thing the US has ever done, but we got over the imprisonment and systematic robbing of US citizens carried out by our military. I think Israel could survive the relocation of a people who attack their civilians in a regular basis. Also, don't forget how hungry people are for the land.
The proper comparison isn't internment. It's the relocation of Native Americans.
But I already know your stance on that and have NO desire to rehash it.
But that is the proper comparison. And it won't work for the same exact reasons.
I was going to say "direct complicity and participation in indigenous genocide" and "deliberate endorsement of chattel slavery of tens of millions."
Or maybe "bombing the the breadbasket of Southeast Asia so bad almost the entire country flooded."
These are not particular things unique to the United States (though the chattel slavery thing is pretty rare on that scale), but they're pretty bad, and I do think they edge out Japanese internment.
None of those other acts involved the use of US military force against US citizens or the government otherwise directly ordering that a portion of its citizens be persecuted based on race. I know there were Indians that were citizens but were still forced to relocate and I think that is horrible, but at least it was illegal and a violation of law when that happened, not the direct, intentional mistreatment of US citizens by the US government.
My bad--I was addressing, "...worst thing the US has ever done..." part. I should have been clearer.
Because citing the internment is kind of like saying the worse thing Germany ever did was shutter a number of uncooperative Christian churches.
It works if your goal is "get these people out of my hair."
It does not work if your goal is "peaceful resolution to the problem of sharing land."
But why would they want to share? Israel has beaten them every time. It is bizarre to think that the reward for consistent victory is having to endure constant terror attacks against civilians by the loser, who is right on your door step, but who you can't do anything about. The idealism is all well and good, but what is Israel to do? Fail in its principle duty of protecting its citizens? If Canada were lobbing missiles at us all the time, Would we stand by and allow it, or is the right thing to do to roll over them and not give them their land back? After all, it's our citizens they would be killing, and what is our goal if not to protect them?
Posts
At the governmental level, that sentiment exists only in that it results in no attacks anymore.
Frankly, all evidence seems to indicate Israel just wants the Palestinians to shut up and go away. They don't want them dead, they just want them to stop getting in Israel's way. Any peace agreement seems destined for failure because it involves Israel giving up something they want.
It helps to keep in mind that the Israeli government, like any other, is made out of people. These people have their own ambitions and biases, some are benign, others incompetent, others power-hungry. There will be a variety of justifications and goals for actions like this, some of them contradicting others.
I think you're right that this concerns Egypt and Iran though. With Egypt, this can be seen as a sort of test. They had been fairly reliable allies under Mubarak, so now this can be Israel testing the waters and seeing just where Egypt stands. Morsi talks about supporting the Palestinians, but like Mubarak is more keen on maintaining the status quo with Israel. And all of that can be seen as laying groundwork for a confrontation with Iran.
If Israel were to attack Iranian nuclear sites, or convince the US to do so, Iran would retaliate. Given the distances involved, Iran would have a pretty hard time with that; it has long range missiles, but it doesn't have anything close to the same abilities as Israel in that regard. What it does have are proxies that border Israel, and some general support from the Arab street. In a war with Iran, Israel can expect a war with Hezbollah to go with it. The civil war in Syria has already made this less likely. If Assad falls then Hezbollah becomes isolated, and is anyway getting plenty of flak for remaining loyal to Assad. It might also expect trouble with the Palestinians. Well, Gaza is now nipped in the bud, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egpyt isn't doing anything crazy, so things seem ok on this side as well.
I don't think this was the motivation for the current violence, but I'm sure there are military planners in Israel who are thinking along these lines. I consider an Israeli attack on Iran to be unlikely; but only because Israel can expect retaliation on its own borders. If Israel can mitigate that threat, then an attack on Iran becomes a lot more likely.
I think this is exactly right, but I also don't think it is so unreasonable. Imagine how frustrating it must be to have conquered a people, have vastly superior resources and military strength to them, but still be stuck with them sitting there being a thorn in your side, attacking your people. And then on top of that, you also have your citizens clamoring for the land which you conquered but can't use. It's untenable. Has there ever been a nation in history that just allowed this type of situation to last forever? We faced it in the US, and we all know the outcome here.
Here is the thing. If you conquer and they become your subject or are otherwise integrated, great. But what do you do when they continue to resist? You already conquered them. You don't want to go for a scorched earth tactic, but if you don't, then what are you left with? A weaker power who you are unable to protect your people from?
Extra time to get some bombing in!
And that is some rough stuff too. Though if they didn't leave the vehicle I wonder how the guy knew it was Hamas. Regardless, I'm sure there is a bit of purging going on inside Gaza.
Maybe it means that whole "conquest" idea wasn't what it was cracked up to be?
Israel is highly unusual in keeping its borders purposefully vague. I don't think any other nation state has done that; they usually like to have their borders defined to the inch.
In a hundred years, everyone will just blow it off like we do in the US with the Native Americans or the Turks do with the Armenians.
Though, I guess its easier to blow up terrorists (and "terrorists") in a territory that is technically yours than technically in another country.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Right. Israel has stuck the Palestinians in this horrible in between cause they really want all the benefits of wiping out another culture and taking their land, they just don't want to actually do the horrible wiping out part. So the whole situation staggers along at half-measures.
Israel is an explicitly colonialist state with the "bad luck" to have been created right before the time when everyone realised how fucking monstrous that kind of thing was.
Neither gets more than the other, because they'd literally be in the same fucking country. No genocidal tendencies required, just kick non-integrating members of the new "Semite Society" in the nuts.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
Where would the Israelis force them to? No one wants the Palestinian people.
Demographics mean Israel would never accept.
This is ideal, and something I muttered to myself everything my friend from Lebanon would talk about her politics.
But.
And this is the most important part.
You can't have a secular government if you can't get the people in the country to sign onto it.
So you would again just have Lebanon.
Because people frown on that shit noawadays. That's pretty much the only reason.
Instead, it's sorta happening slowly. People whine less about that apparently.
Exactly. They just want them gone, they don't want to kill them all or put them in camps of ship them to another country though. It's a real problem.
On a serious note, I am very impressed by that Iron Dome system.
EDIT: @Daedalus: The iron dome is just the manifestation of the unmatched collective ability of Tel Avivians to not give a single fuck about anything.
Balls fucker ass and shitcocks, don't make me depressed man.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
The Palestinian leaders would gladly leave the Israelis in peace for five turns in exchange for the secret of Currency!
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
This isn't a game. Millions of lives are at stake. Too many have died and had their lives ruined by this never ending tragedy.
Because its a war crime, specifically its ethnic cleansing. Its considered a crime against humanity. Its a violation of the Geneva and Hague conventions, carry no statue of limitation or limits of jurisdiction. Any person participating in such a systematic act, from the lowest of soldier to the prime minister of Israel would be held legally responsible for their acts for the rest of their life. We are still trying to hold trials for prison guards from the Holocaust over 70 years after the fact. And the Holocaust is a big part of why this is a big no no.
That's the theory of moving the Palestinians out of the Occupied territories. The reality of moving them would involve probably tens of thousands of deaths, would take several months, cost billions of dollars in logistics, would spark massive round the clock unrest all over the world, would force pretty much every muslim country to declare war and force the US government to break ties with Israel. There would probably also be massive unrest within Israel, with military units mutinying and the economy collapsing completly.
Net result: Your simple solution would destroy Israel more thoroughly then a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv and result in a second Jewish Diaspora as Jews that oppose these actions would leave Israel in droves as political refugees.
Do you really think it would be that extreme. I mean, I regard the US internment of the Japanese as the worst thing the US has ever done, but we got over the imprisonment and systematic robbing of US citizens carried out by our military. I think Israel could survive the relocation of a people who attack their civilians in a regular basis. Also, don't forget how hungry people are for the land.
The proper comparison isn't internment. It's the relocation of Native Americans.
But I already know your stance on that and have NO desire to rehash it.
But that is the proper comparison. And it won't work for the same exact reasons.
I'll do a write-up on the Kurds next time they appear on my radar. I haven't found they've played much role in the Syrian civil war, directly or indirectly. While Syria does have a Kurdish population, they're mostly in Turkey and Iraq, with some in Iran as well. They almost have their own country in northern Iraq now, they are highly autonomous and highly authoritarian. I suspect it is in the Iraqi context that I'll end up writing a bit about them.
Really, there is all kinds of stuff I could write about Syria. How its causing internecine fighting in Lebanon (yes, again). How thousands of refugees have fled to Jordan, which is itself starting to look pretty unstable. How Syria's ruins, which date from Roman ages and before, are being devastated in the war. The huge role Qatar and Saudi Arabia are playing. Etc.
I'd love to write about all these things, but it would end up being a book. A rather crappy book I'm sure, so I'll keep it simple for now.
While this is not incorrect, in of itself, it's worth nothing that this does not suddenly mean "OMG! Unmanned drones are so cool and fix ALL PROBLEMS EVERYWHERE!" either.
I'm saying this as a general warning, not to anyone specifically.
I was going to say "direct complicity and participation in indigenous genocide" and "deliberate endorsement of chattel slavery of tens of millions."
Or maybe "bombing the the breadbasket of Southeast Asia so bad almost the entire country flooded."
These are not particular things unique to the United States (though the chattel slavery thing is pretty rare on that scale), but they're pretty bad, and I do think they edge out Japanese internment.
I don't want to have that discussion either, but I question your assertion that it did not "work.". The end result was the conquered people removed from the land, and isolated from the American people. If those are the Israeli goals, then I think relocation could well be successful in achieving them.
None of those other acts involved the use of US military force against US citizens or the government otherwise directly ordering that a portion of its citizens be persecuted based on race. I know there were Indians that were citizens but were still forced to relocate and I think that is horrible, but at least it was illegal and a violation of law when that happened, not the direct, intentional mistreatment of US citizens by the US government.
Oh, it would totally work.
It would just be, you know, fucking monstrous.
I mean, the relocation of Native Americans was a smashing success for European settlers. We own virtually all their land. They don't fight back.
It was also an atrocity.
PS - the Japanese internment is a bad comparison because that only turned out well cause we all released them at the end of it and, more or less, let them go back to their lives. I don't think the "idea" here is to send all of Gaza on a vacation for a few years and then send them back to Israel.
I believe it's technically Ethnic Cleansing, but don't quote me on that.
Not that Ethnic Cleansing is any less horrible or illegal.
It does not work if your goal is "peaceful resolution to the problem of sharing land."
My bad--I was addressing, "...worst thing the US has ever done..." part. I should have been clearer.
Because citing the internment is kind of like saying the worse thing Germany ever did was shutter a number of uncooperative Christian churches.
I think the first one is the actual goal, not the second.
But why would they want to share? Israel has beaten them every time. It is bizarre to think that the reward for consistent victory is having to endure constant terror attacks against civilians by the loser, who is right on your door step, but who you can't do anything about. The idealism is all well and good, but what is Israel to do? Fail in its principle duty of protecting its citizens? If Canada were lobbing missiles at us all the time, Would we stand by and allow it, or is the right thing to do to roll over them and not give them their land back? After all, it's our citizens they would be killing, and what is our goal if not to protect them?