PeterMP Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, Destino said: again, it’s not just about leadership. Hamas in Gaza needs to surrender or leave. Not one guy, not three guys, not a committee at the top. All of them. If they live on in exile in whatever country, then they become that host nation’s problem. That shelter will no doubt come with conditions, one of which is surely not to draw their hosts into a shooting war with an Israel. If anything the importance of getting leaders is overstated. Removing their army of followers and state from which to operate is at least as significant. The problem is that many of the relevant countries don't have the ability to stop Hamas. Countries like Lebanon and Jordan have issues controlling their territory. Just like Pakistan doesn't really have control of their tribal territories, and al Qeada/Taliban fighters were able to go back and forth. Then as part of that, doing something in Gaza isn't really removing the state that they operate in any more than us doing what we did in Afghanistan. Where they appear to have returned now that we left (that's where we killed al-Zawahiri). Israel is going to have similar issues with Hamas. (And just to be clear before you said that a few al qeada members, but at the time estimates were that nearly a thousand or more al qeada fighters escaped Tora Bora into Pakistan. Now in the end many return to Afghanistan and are killed or captured or are captured in the part of Pakistan that the government actually has good control of. But you can look at our issues in Afghanistan wit the Taliban and see what issues Israel is going to have (where Hamas is more similar to the Taliban than to al Qeada). The Taliban nor al Qeada ever unconditionally surrendered. Many of them hid in Pakistan, and now the Taliban is firmly back in charge. And there is good evidence that al Qeada has also returned. You can say it has to happen, but there doesn't appear to be a clear route for Israel to make it actually happen without pretty serious escalation in terms of the number of dead Gazans and expanding the conflict to other countries in the region which they don't necessarily have the ability to do, especially without support from other countries. And as I've already pointed out many experts doubt it is a practical thing through just military actions. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/israel-gaza-war-can-hamas-actually-be-eliminated-experts-weigh-in.html I'll ask you the same question I asked @CousinsCowgirl84 (which she never answered), are you good with Israel killing or displacing every Palestinian in Gaza to eliminate Hamas? Occupying Lebanon? For us, there was a line in terms of entering Pakistan (except to get bin Laden). In WWII, the line became the number of people that would killed during an invasion of Japan and we decided we could live with the upper level of Japanese government/military leaders living and the Emperor keeping a symbolic position. Where is the line for Israel? Edited February 13 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, PeterMP said: That doesn't explain how forcing Egypt to surrender would make things better for Israel today. What is the result of destroying the Egyptian army and forcing Egypt to surrender? Be specific. Do you believe that if Israel had destroyed the Egyptian army that in 1973 there wouldn't be militant Islamic/Arab people trying to destroy Israel? Who can say. 1 hour ago, PeterMP said: Please tell me what I have wrong. Be specific. Quote what I said you were wrong about and explain why it was right. Japan demilitarized as part of the peace agreement that allowed the in the upper level of their government to survive. That would like if Israel and Hamas come to a peace agreement this week that included Hamas demilitarizing. That is not the same as what you are pushing here. (Denazification did not include the execution of a large number of Nazis.). If Israel wants to require demilitarization of Hamas as part of a peace agreement, that's reasonable. But that's different than saying Hamas has to be destroyed. You are mincing words. What happened was a total capitulation of the existing governments. If Hamas totally capitulated, I would expect Israel would consider that a win. Until then Hamas gets puts through the grinder like we did to Japan and Germany. Hell we dropped on two nukes on Japan and no one was crying about the civilians. I’m not advocating for nukes (lol), I’m saying that you very rarely get peace through anything but total capitulation of the enemy. 1 hour ago, PeterMP said: Yes, I'm aware of what Israel has been saying with respect Lebanon. Is that something you'd advocate? (which I've already asked you) (I will point out this is something we don't think would be a good idea. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/07/israel-hezbollah-lebanon-blinken/ Partly at least because don't think they can.) Israel has a responsibility to provide security for its people, so if they made the choice I certaintly wouldn’t consider them the bad guy. 45 minutes ago, PeterMP said: I'll ask you the same question I asked @CousinsCowgirl84 (which she never answered), are you good with Israel killing or displacing every Palestinian in Gaza to eliminate Hamas? Occupying Lebanon? Israel doesn’t want to do any of that. What is the point of asking stupid hypotheticals no one wants? Edited February 13 by CousinsCowgirl84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 (edited) 4 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: If Hamas totally capitulated, I would expect Israel would consider that a win. Until then Hamas gets puts through the grinder like we did to Japan and Germany. Friendly reminder that when we put those two through the grinder that was and is considered total war. Edited February 13 by Renegade7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 3 hours ago, Renegade7 said: Friendly reminder that when we put those two through the grinder that was and is considered total war. Yes, that was my point. Israel needs to be able to fight a total war if they want lasting peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said: Yes, that was my point. Israel needs to be able to fight a total war if they want lasting peace. That's against International Law now, has been since WW2... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: That's against International Law now, has been since WW2... It doesn’t seem like international law is worth a whole lot these days. What did you mean by total war? Most military activity that isn’t purposefully attacking civilians seems legitimate to me. Edited February 13 by CousinsCowgirl84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 56 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: It doesn’t seem like international law is worth a whole lot these days. What did you mean by total war? Most military activity that isn’t purposefully attacking civilians seems legitimate to me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war The Geneva Convention most people think of was actually the finally meeting on that matter and meant to address war impact on civilians following WW2. We have rules against this style of warfare for a reason, just because they don't matter to you doesn't mean they don't matter. The idea that some countries aren't following the rules is not a valid reason to not have any. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 (edited) 11 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: Who can say. You are mincing words. What happened was a total capitulation of the existing governments. If Hamas totally capitulated, I would expect Israel would consider that a win. Until then Hamas gets puts through the grinder like we did to Japan and Germany. Hell we dropped on two nukes on Japan and no one was crying about the civilians. I’m not advocating for nukes (lol), I’m saying that you very rarely get peace through anything but total capitulation of the enemy. Israel has a responsibility to provide security for its people, so if they made the choice I certaintly wouldn’t consider them the bad guy. Israel doesn’t want to do any of that. What is the point of asking stupid hypotheticals no one wants? If you can't say, then you can't say it was a mistake. Part of saying something was a mistake requires to be saying well if it didn't happen here's what the result would have been and that would have been better. I'm not mincing words. We actually initially demanded a total surrender by Japan. At the time and today, it is recognized that we settled for less by allowing the Emperor and other high ranking government officials to not just live but retain their freedom. I've made this point several times now. I think it would be good for Israel to clearly communicate what the total destruction of Hamas means for the top of their leadership. There is a big difference if you are one of the top people in Hamas between, we're going to let you live and pretty go on with your life as you are now as long as you aren't connected to violence in the future and you have to physically surrender to Israel for some sort of a trial. The difference is life and death. And that sort of thing tends to matter to people a lot, and that difference is not mincing words. In any of these types of negotiations, what happens to the upper leadership is a big deal. We saw it with Japan at the end of WWII. You see it with the British and the IRA (the British allowed the top IRA leadership to live). The deal with Japan also ensured it's territorial integrity (unlike Germany that was divided up). Not having to give up land to the Soviets or having the Soviets as an occupying force was a big deal to the Japanese. We came to negotiated agreement with Japan to end the WWII and did not require total capitulation. And I'm saying you are wrong. Peace doesn't come from total capitulation. That was the difference between WWI and WWII. Israel has peace with Egypt, and that didn't require the total capitulation of Egypt. What history shows that is required for peace is the creation of a system where both sides can be relatively successful (unless you commit a genocide level event and just kill essentially everybody on the other side). With respect to Egypt, peace came because of our aid to Egypt after the war ended gave them a level of success (because we were interested in moving Egypt away from the Soviets) that was then cemented in the Camp David Accords. vs. it hasn't happened with the Palestinians because despite all of the fighting there has never been a process put in place that has allowed the Palestinians to have a reasonable level of success. Germany surrendered and demilitarized at the end of WWI. That surrender didn't bring peace because it resulted in a failed German state, and failed states can never bring you peace. Israel's actions contribute to them being surrounded by failed states (Gaza, West Bank, Jordan, and Lebanon). Even if Israel attacks and completely destroys the militaries of those states, they won't have peace unless there is a path to those states being successful (or the Isrealis kill a lot of people so those states essentially become depopulated). And like Egypt (and realistically Japan after WWII) finding that path to success doesn't necessarily require the total capitulation. We found peace at the end of WWII with Germany and Japan because we allowed them to be successful and even worked to make them successful. The same thing happened after in 1973 with Egypt and Israel and that's why Israel and Egypt haven't fought another war. It isn't because of who did or did not totally capitulate. And this level of thinking doesn't require a degree in international relationships. Its pretty basic college level history. That Israel doesn't seem to understand it seems shocking to me. Edited February 13 by PeterMP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 2 hours ago, Renegade7 said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war The Geneva Convention most people think of was actually the finally meeting on that matter and meant to address war impact on civilians following WW2. We have rules against this style of warfare for a reason, just because they don't matter to you doesn't mean they don't matter. The idea that some countries aren't following the rules is not a valid reason to not have any. "The following post-World War II conflicts have been characterized as "total war": 1948 Arab–Israeli War (1948–1949)[53] Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988)[54] Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)[55] 2023 Israel–Hamas war (2023–present)[56] " Just wanted to point out, this current conflict was characterized as "total war" following Hamas' attacks - by land, sea, and air. Not Israel's... Don't start no total war, won't be no total war 1 hour ago, PeterMP said: Israel's actions contribute to them being surrounded by failed states (Gaza, West Bank, Jordan, and Lebanon). Interesting take. Care to expound? The way I'm reading it - if I get bullied, and the bully loses. It's my fault their parents don't love them. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 22 minutes ago, Skins24 said: "The following post-World War II conflicts have been characterized as "total war": 1948 Arab–Israeli War (1948–1949)[53] Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988)[54] Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)[55] 2023 Israel–Hamas war (2023–present)[56] " Just wanted to point out, this current conflict was characterized as "total war" following Hamas' attacks - by land, sea, and air. Not Israel's... Don't start no total war, won't be no total war ~29k Palestianians have been killed since Oct 7 attacks compared to ~1400 Israelis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 Just now, Renegade7 said: ~29k Palestianians have been killed since Oct 7 attacks compared to ~1400 Israelis. How many of them are Hamas ? And how many of the rest would you blame on Hamas ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 1 minute ago, Renegade7 said: ~29k Palestianians have been killed since Oct 7 attacks compared to ~1400 Israelis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war No one invent or imagine a more damning indictment of Hamas’ leadership or intent. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Skins24 said: Interesting take. Care to expound? The way I'm reading it - if I get bullied, and the bully loses. It's my fault their parents don't love them. I don't understand your analogy. Do you understand that the peace agreement that ended WWI contributed to WWII? Can you explain how that relates to a bullies parents loving them? What has been left for the Palestinians to live on and the economic support they get or can be obtained from the land they live on is not enough to create a viable state. That condition is partly the result of decisions the Israelis have made at the end of their different conflicts. Palestinians that have been displaced have been forced into the surrounding countries that don't have the means or ability to absorb more poor and uneducated people that are even poorer because they've lost their land and property. And that is also something Israel could help with. Edited February 13 by PeterMP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 6 minutes ago, Spearfeather said: How many of them are Hamas ? And how many of the rest would you blame on Hamas ? That we know at least 10k of them are Palestinian children...ill be back later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 3 hours ago, Renegade7 said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war The Geneva Convention most people think of was actually the finally meeting on that matter and meant to address war impact on civilians following WW2. We have rules against this style of warfare for a reason, just because they don't matter to you doesn't mean they don't matter. The idea that some countries aren't following the rules is not a valid reason to not have any. Most countries aren’t following those rules, lol. But Israel isn’t breaking the rules anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 2 hours ago, PeterMP said: If you can't say, then you can't say it was a mistake. Part of saying something was a mistake requires to be saying well if it didn't happen here's what the result would have been and that would have been better. Well that is complete bull****. You don’t have to know the outcome of infinitely possible solutions to say one solution was a mistake/incorrect. 2 hours ago, PeterMP said: I'm not mincing words. We actually initially demanded a total surrender by Japan. At the time and today, it is recognized that we settled for less by allowing the Emperor and other high ranking government officials to not just live but retain their freedom. I've made this point several times now. I think it would be good for Israel to clearly communicate what the total destruction of Hamas means for the top of their leadership. Complete capitulation. Like what it was with Japan and Germany. We can disagree on what means by total capitulation but we can agree on what happened to Germany and Japan should happen to Hamas and Palestine. Total denazification and demilitarization. 2 hours ago, PeterMP said: I'm saying you are wrong. Peace doesn't come from total capitulation. Thats sweet. Empirical evidence says otherwise. But you are free to have wrong opinions. Or you just disagree with what total capitulation is… 2 hours ago, PeterMP said: We found peace at the end of WWII with Germany and Japan because we allowed them to be successful and even worked to make them successful. By occupying them, demilitarizing them, and assimilating them into our culture. Israel should of course follow the same route in Palestine. 30 minutes ago, PeterMP said: . Do you understand that the peace agreement that ended WWI contributed to WWII? there is a difference between total capitulation and punishment. Two different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: ~29k Palestianians have been killed since Oct 7 attacks compared to ~1400 Israelis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war So you agree, Hamas should end this nonsense, disband, and compensate every Palestinian and Israeli affected by this war... 32 minutes ago, PeterMP said: I don't understand your analogy. Do you understand that the peace agreement that ended WWI contributed ti WWII? Can you explain how that relates to a bullies parents loving them? What has been left for the Palestinians to live on and the economic support they get or can be obtained from the land they live on is not enough to create a viable statr. That condition is partly the result of decisions the Israelis have made at the end of their different conflicts. I was only referring to the part I quoted about Israel's actions contributing to the failed states of the surrounding countries/entities. Per your post...and again, this is why I'm asking you to expound: Israel is attacked -> The attacking countries lose -> Those countries don't have strong governments or are failing. Is your solution that Israel loses to these countries in order for them to have stronger governments? On the surface it read like blaming the defendee for the aggressor's condition. I know that's not the case, which is why I asked for clarification. What does history say? Were they failed or failing states and attacked Israel which lead to even worse conditions? Or did they attack Israel, and because they attacked Israel and lost, that lead to failed or failing states? Better question - What do you think Israel should have or could have done after each of these conflicts? Edited February 13 by Skins24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 20 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: That we know at least 10k of them are Palestinian children...ill be back later... Are you using figures from the Gaza Ministry of Health, because it is run by Hamas. 800 miles of tunnels built, but not even a single bomb shelter. Hamas wants to maximize civilian casualties in order to sway international opinion, embarrass Arab countries who have made peace with Israel, and most of all, sabotage any potential deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia. They care less about their own people than Putin cares about convicts sent in meatwaves to die in Ukraine. That said, I would feel much better if someone other than Netanyahu were in charge - he needs to divert attention from the fact that his policy of ignoring Hamas to allow it to become a source of division with the PA has been a catastrophic failure. He has NO incentive, actually he has disincentives, to end this conflict, since once it is over he will likely (hopefully) lose power 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 Just now, Skins24 said: So you agree, Hamas should end this nonsense, disband, and compensate every Palestinian and Israeli affected by this war... I was only referring to the part I quoted about Israel's actions contributing to the failed states of the surrounding countries/entities. Per your post...and again, this is why I'm asking you to expound: Israel is attacked -> The attacking countries lose -> Those countries don't have strong governments or are failing. Is your solution that Israel loses to these countries in order for them to have stronger governments? On the surface it read like blaming the defendee for the aggressor's condition. I know that's not the case, which is why I asked for clarification. What does history say? Where they failed or failing states and attacked Israel which lead to even worse conditions? Or did they attack Israel, and because they attacked Israel and lost, that lead to failed or failing states? Better question - What do you think Israel should have or could have done after each of these conflicts? Israel is not some innocent party sitting around minding its own business when Big Bad Hamas came and hurt them out of nowhere. Israel has been displacing and murdering Palestinians as they saw fit. So let's turn that question around. What should Palestine do when Israelis come in and murder and displace their people and the world turns a blind eye? Should they declare war, put on uniforms and stand in long lines with their rifles and expect to trade fire back-and-forth against the much larger army that is funded by the wealthiest country with the most advanced military in the world? Surely that will put an end to Israeli aggression. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 1 minute ago, Riggo-toni said: 800 miles of tunnels built, but not even a single bomb shelter. Hamas wants to maximize civilian casualties in order to sway international opinion, embarrass Arab countries who have made peace with Israel, and most of all, sabotage any potential deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Yep. 1 minute ago, Riggo-toni said: That said, I would feel much better if someone other than Netanyahu were in charge - he needs to divert attention from the fact that his policy of ignoring Hamas to allow it to become a source of division with the PA has been a catastrophic failure. He has NO incentive, actually he has disincentives, to end this conflict, since once it is over he will likely (hopefully) lose power this is one of the more silly talking points that has came out. That Netanyahu needs the war to continue to stay in power. While that part might be true, his replacements are all more hawkish than him. Even if he were to step down tomorrow, the war would continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 12 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: Are you using figures from the Gaza Ministry of Health, because it is run by Hamas. I'll be honest, it's been jus as hard to find a credible source that's NOT using that number as it has been where it came from. It's fair to say the civilian death rate between Palestinians and Israelis right now is nowhere near each other, general consensus of international community, including our own government. 12 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: 800 miles of tunnels built, but not even a single bomb shelter. Hamas wants to maximize civilian casualties in order to sway international opinion, embarrass Arab countries who have made peace with Israel, and most of all, sabotage any potential deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia. They care less about their own people than Putin cares about convicts sent in meatwaves to die in Ukraine. This is not a who's the good guy discussion because like @PeterMP has notes it's important to set up a situation best for Palestinians when this is over and its not clear either side is interested in that before or after this over to help eventually end this cycle we keep seeing there. My opinion. 12 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: That said, I would feel much better if someone other than Netanyahu were in charge - he needs to divert attention from the fact that his policy of ignoring Hamas to allow it to become a source of division with the PA has been a catastrophic failure. He has NO incentive, actually he has disincentives, to end this conflict, since once it is over he will likely (hopefully) lose power Couldn't agree more, the script is terrifyingly familiar for a country we keep trying to defend no matter what. 28 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: Most countries aren’t following those rules, lol. But Israel isn’t breaking the rules anyway. Most countries aren't committing war crimes, please stop. The idea Israel isn't breaking any but most countries are just sounds like talking for the sake of talking, not even sure what I'm responding to anymore. Your next post might as well start with "I'm rubber, you're glue..." at this rate...you're too indifferent to the consequences to talk solutions with, imo... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 24 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: That said, I would feel much better if someone other than Netanyahu were in charge - he needs to divert attention from the fact that his policy of ignoring Hamas to allow it to become a source of division with the PA has been a catastrophic failure. He has NO incentive, actually he has disincentives, to end this conflict, since once it is over he will likely (hopefully) lose power My understanding is that Netanyahu didn't ignore Hamas, he actively propped them up because it is helpful to him politically to have them as an enemy rather than allowing another party to take hold in Gaza. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Skins24 said: So you agree, Hamas should end this nonsense, disband, and compensate every Palestinian and Israeli affected by this war... End what nonsense? Israel occupation Gaza and the West Bank? This is becoming too much about defending Israels right to lay a bear down versus what lead to this or where do we go from here when this is over. The entire Gaza strip could be leveled if IDF enters Rafah next, yet the best we got out of what's next is making sure "Hamas is gone"..."?"..."Profit"... Defending Israels right to defend themselves however they please is just a distraction from this reality. Edited February 13 by Renegade7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 13 minutes ago, Skins24 said: So you agree, Hamas should end this nonsense, disband, and compensate every Palestinian and Israeli affected by this war... I was only referring to the part I quoted about Israel's actions contributing to the failed states of the surrounding countries/entities. Per your post...and again, this is why I'm asking you to expound: Israel is attacked -> The attacking countries lose -> Those countries don't have strong governments or are failing. Is your solution that Israel loses to these countries in order for them to have stronger governments? On the surface it read like blaming the defendee for the aggressor's condition. I know that's not the case, which is why I asked for clarification. What does history say? Were they failed or failing states and attacked Israel which lead to even worse conditions? Or did they attack Israel, and because they attacked Israel and lost, that lead to failed or failing states? Better question - What do you think Israel should have or could have done after each of these conflicts? My solution is the same as we did after WWII and not after WWI and realistically after we did for Egypt after they lost to Israel in 1973. To help create a situation where the states have the reasonable ability to succeed. "We" (the allies that won WWI) contributed the failure of the German state that was created after WWI because of the requirements on that state that ended WWI. Similarly, Israel's decisions after the various conflicts have contributed to the states around it being failures. Knowing whether the Palestinian state that was created at the partition could be successful or not is hard because it was pretty much attacked immediately. It never even had a chance at getting going. But you can't separate the success of many states with the support that they get from the larger international community, including their neighbors. No different than Japan and Germany are successes today partly because of the support we gave them after WWII, especially in the context of security from the Soviets. If we defeat Japan in WWII and then walk away, there's a much better chance that Japan today is a failed state because they wouldn't have the means/ability to stand up to the Soviets and likely would have ended up giving up territory to the Soviets if not haven fallen under Soviet control. Countries like Lebanon need support in terms of security from Iran (and Iranian agents (e.g. Hezbollah)), but instead of support they get attacked. What Israel should do and should have done is worked with the aggressors (like we did after WWII and didn't do after WWI) with strong appeals to the international community to help those states have the potential achieve success. And that likely includes Israel giving up land that they've claimed (and now settled on) during those disputes. It potentially would have included money coming from somewhere (again with respect to Egypt in 1973 it came from us) to help those countries recover from losing the war (and after WWII for Germany and Japan, the money came from us). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 11 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: I'll be honest, it's been jus as hard to find a credible source that's NOT using that number as it has been where it came from. It's fair to say the civilian death rate between Palestinians and Israelis right now is nowhere near each other, general consensus of international community, including our own government. This is not a who's the good guy discussion because like @PeterMP has notes it's important to set up a situation best for Palestinians when this is over and its not clear either side is interested in that before or after this over to help eventually end this cycle we keep seeing there. My opinion. Couldn't agree more, the script is terrifyingly familiar for a country we keep trying to defend no matter what. Most countries aren't committing war crimes, please stop. The idea Israel isn't breaking any but most countries are just sounds like talking for the sake of talking, not even sure what I'm responding to anymore. Your next post might as well start with "I'm rubber, you're glue..." at this rate...you're too indifferent to the consequences to talk solutions with, imo... Sorry, most countries at war are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now