Social Biden considers accepting Palestinian refugees

[kflo]

Nobody cries that Israel is 'taking' Palestine/Gaza.

They object to meaningless loss of life.

I'm proud to be called a 'Pali sympathizer' in that regard. The fewer people that are murdered by desperate politicians the better. If you're against that because 'daddy issues', that's on you.

Per your second question, Israel are led by pieces of shit who by each passing day become closer and closer to a Hamas equivalent-level extremist. They can't stop themselves. They're fucked in the head. Blood drunk pieces of garbage who will be best off dead - like Hamas.

Your version has hamas in charge of Gaza. And obviously zero progress and more restrictions.

 

[kflo]

How do you explain the end of apartheid in South Africa or the civil rights movement in the US, or People Power Revolution? Since you think strikes and demonstrations are ineffective, how come all these regimes with much more firepower lose?

This isn’t an internal conflict. One party thinks the existence of the other neighbor in the region is an abomination.

 

[DiddlyDoodly]

Bring them in Joe.

It will bury your chances to get re-elected even more.

I love it.

 

[avenue94]

This isn’t an internal conflict. One party thinks the existence of the other neighbor in the region is an abomination.

You're arguing that Israel or Israeli is going to occupy Gaza. You can't occupy your neighbor and blockade it and then claim it's not an internal conflict.

Either way, you're describing The Troubles...again

 

[Rational Poster]

You know the Troubles is a modern extension of sectarian violence that has been ongoing for hundreds of years, though, right?

Judaism vs Islam has lost far fewer lives than Catholicism vs Protestantism.

There isn't even a comparison to be made, it's degrees of magnitude greater.

The idea Israel-Palestine or any other equivalent war is 'much more fierce' is laughable.

Nice fan fiction. Holy

 

[Siver!]

Nice fan fiction. Holy

There's nothing to disagree with, hence you post a picture.

 

[Rational Poster]

The unspoken part of my approach is Israel needs to rein in its more extreme voting blocs and give up more at the bargaining table.

In what ways do you see this conflict as unique? It's quite similar to the Troubles and its origins and sectarian dimensions.

What interntioanl coalition would oversee Gaza?

The troubles and this conflict date back to the turn of the 19th century.

If so, why are there mass protests demanding that Bibi do more to get hostages back?

My guy...you have been presented with Bibi literally saying this was the strategy. You're at this point saying the sky isn't blue.

The troubles refers specifically to the ~30 year period of conflict in the 20th century though. And it didn't end in miraculous peace just because people wanted peace. The British military and intelligence had ratfucked the terror cells from all sides till they were so impotent their attacks had no impact. The British convinced the IRA and other terror groups involved that their violent resistance was pointless and forced them to negotiate.. by hunting them down and killing them and infiltrating their networks so they could predict attacks.

The protests to get Bibi to do more to rescue the hostage were the same people blockading food aid into Gaza. The more they want is to kill everyone in Gaza until their loved ones are located.

My guy, now you're conflating two different concepts, the political strategy Bibi has expressed post second intifada, and your own question about conquering Gaza itself. lmao


The reality is the Palestinians want this war still, and they're even less open to peace than the Israelis ever were. I do not blame Israelis for adopting a strategy that conforms to this reality after the breakdown of peace talks in the 00s and the second intifada.

 

[Rational Poster]

There's nothing to disagree with, hence you post a picture.

More like nothing in the post to take seriously and waste my time with.

 

[Brueskie]

Take all Palestinians and disperse them across the globe in isolated groups consisting of no more than a couple of families, so they can cause no trouble as they're wont to do. Makes this dispersal permanent, and the situation is forever resolved.

 

[Siver!]

More like nothing in the post to take seriously and waste my time with.

What's the phrase? Concession accepted they seem to say round these parts.

 

[Rational Poster]

What's the phrase? Concession accepted they seem to say round these parts.

Whatever makes you feel better about your fan fiction writing.

 

[avenue94]

The troubles refers specifically to the ~30 year period of conflict in the 20th century though. And it didn't end in miraculous peace just because people wanted peace. The British military and intelligence had ratfucked the terror cells from all sides till they were so impotent their attacks had no impact. The British convinced the IRA and other terror groups involved that their violent resistance was pointless and forced them to negotiate.. by hunting them down and killing them and infiltrating their networks so they could predict attacks.

The US put pressure on the UK to come to terms because the PR angle was untenable. Not to mention PIRA almost knocked off a sitting PM and made several attacks in "safe" UK territory.

My guy, now you're conflating two different concepts, the political strategy Bibi has expressed post second intifada, and your own question about conquering Gaza itself. lmao

What am I conflating?

The reality is the Palestinians want this war still, and they're even less open to peace than the Israelis ever were. I do not blame Israelis for adopting a strategy that conforms to this reality after the breakdown of peace talks in the 00s and the second intifada.

What makes you think Palestinians want this war still?

 

[Rational Poster]

The US put pressure on the UK to come to terms because the PR angle was untenable. Not to mention PIRA almost knocked off a sitting PM and made several attacks in "safe" UK territory.

What am I conflating?

What makes you think Palestinians want this war still?

No actually, the British military was beating the shit out of the terror cells kinetically and clandestinely, which ultimately forced them to negotiate.


You were conlfating the two things I said you were conflating.


What makes you think they don't since they just started it up again and all opinion polling currently and historically categorically illustrates that fact? They do not want peace with Israel, they do not want a two state solution, they do not want Israel to exist. They most certainly do not want a one state solution unless they're in charge.

 

[avenue94]

No actually, the British military was beating the shit out of the terror cells kinetically and clandestinely, which ultimately forced them to negotiate.

So why did the US force Blair and company to finally cut a deal then? Your logic isn't logicing here.

You were conlfating the two things I said you were conflating.

I pointed out that Israel's strategy for decades has been to erode Palestinian civil society and stunt the growth of moderate factions, both directly and indirectly. Flash forward today, I'm pointing out there appears to be no one with the popular support to govern Gaza...besides Hamas. Those are two very clearly related issues.

What makes you think they don't since they just started it up again and all opinion polling currently and historically categorically illustrates that fact? They do not want peace with Israel, they do not want a two state solution, they do not want Israel to exist. They most certainly do not want a one state solution unless they're in charge.

I think future conflict is all but guaranteed. It's up to governments and leaders to sell the idea of a two-state solution to civilians who been brutalized by Israel, occupation, or not, for decades (this predates either Intifada). And I'll note a lot of this failure to sell the concept lies with impotent and corrupt Palestinian leadership and the Arab States.

That's how you get peace agreements and transition from the Troubles to fairly peaceful and prosperous societies, and the laundry list of fuck ups everyone in this conflict is going to take years, probably decades, to unravel.

 

[Rational Poster]

So why did the US force Blair and company to finally cut a deal then? Your logic isn't logicing here.

I pointed out that Israel's strategy for decades has been to erode Palestinian civil society and stunt the growth of moderate factions, both directly and indirectly. Flash forward today, I'm pointing out there appears to be no one with the popular support to govern Gaza...besides Hamas. Those are two very clearly related issues.

I think future conflict is all but guaranteed. It's up to governments and leaders to sell the idea of a two-state solution to civilians who been brutalized by Israel, occupation, or not, for decades (this predates either Intifada). And I'll note a lot of this failure to sell the concept lies with impotent and corrupt Palestinian leadership and the Arab States.

That's how you get peace agreements and transition from the Troubles to fairly peaceful and prosperous societies, and the laundry list of fuck ups everyone in this conflict is going to take years, probably decades, to unravel.

The Irish terrorists wouldn't have even negotiated if the British weren't doing the hard work to make their violent resistance irrelevant. My logic is logicing just fine, it just doesn't line up with the propaganda you guys have chosen to consume and spread.

It's all pretty well documented how the British military and intelligence services made the lives of the terror cells hell. Not to mention, like I said earlier, the direct comparison is silly. The conflicts are only similar in that they were conflicts and that's all. There were more casualties and deaths on both sides in just the 1948 war than during the entire troubles period. Trying to directly compare the two is some kind of ignorant historical hindsight quaterbacking.

The two state solution did indeed predate both intifadas, it was the original plan that the Israelis agreed to and the Palestinians flat out rejected. They started the conflict over the disagreement, lost that war and several others, and still refuse to admit defeat or even negotiate.

 

[PhitePhan]

Take all Palestinians and disperse them across the globe in isolated groups consisting of no more than a couple of families, so they can cause no trouble as they're wont to do. Makes this dispersal permanent, and the situation is forever resolved.

Then they can come back a thousand years later and claim the land as their own and take it by force… brilliant!

 

[avenue94]

The Irish terrorists wouldn't have even negotiated if the British weren't doing the hard work to make their violent resistance irrelevant. My logic is logicing just fine, it just doesn't line up with the propaganda you guys have chosen to consume and spread.

And you think Israel hasn't done more militarily and policing wise than the UK and its proxies?

The two state solution did indeed predate both intifadas, it was the original plan that the Israelis agreed to and the Palestinians flat out rejected. They started the conflict over the disagreement, lost that war and several others, and still refuse to admit defeat or even negotiate.

Yes, because Isarel and the US have always approached these negotiations in good faith. They never have, just like the Arab countries or Palestinian leadership

 

[Rational Poster]

And you think Israel hasn't done more militarily and policing wise than the UK and its proxies?

Yes, because Isarel and the US have always approached these negotiations in good faith. They never have, just like the Arab countries or Palestinian leadership

No, but just like I said, though, the conflicts are not at all similar, the belligerent forces in Palestine are exponentially larger and enjoy exponentially more domestic and foreign support from international jihadis and nation states like Iran, not even getting into the billions and billions that have been donated and then stolen and misused by terrorists. It was much easier to break the will to fight in the Irish terror orgs than Palestinian jihadis and their adjacent supporters.

The best support the Irish terrorists ever received were some criminal gangs in the US doing some minor arms smuggling. Their resistance also didn't come with the threat that the slightest misstep by the British meant the end of their state, where for much of Israeli history if they failed to deal with the threats it could have meant the end of their state or even worse.

Clearly both the Americans and Israelis have sought and delivered peace in the region in quite good faith. Israel has ceded thousands of miles of territory in the pursuit of lasting peace. They have secured peace deals with everyone of their neighbors during the same time period and clearly the only bad faith actors during the last peace conferences were the Palestinian "moderates" who strung everyone a long for years and then launched a new wave of terror rather than ratify the agreement.

 

[The_Renaissance]

Consider.
Nobody wants the Pallies. Not even their Muslim neighbours. They are disproportionately involved in dodgy activities EVERYWHERE they go. EVERYWHERE. Ask Jordan about their last dalliance with the Pallies, and how they had to go scorched earth on the cunts to shut them down - and that's a fellow Muslim country.

Ask Scandinavia how they're finding the Pally invasion. A part of the world that essentially had no gun crime. Now hundreds of percent higher due to the Pally community.

These people are walking trouble

 

[Spounman]

It would make too much sense for Arab countries like their NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR EGYPT to take them in. Let's ship them across the world instead