Israeli–Palestinian war (2023)

[Metamorph]

Alive is just a little Austrian painter with his Austrian painter friends who wants to help free the Arab race from the "Jewish menace" and also desires to return to a blood-and-soil vision of society. He can't debate any of you because he only sees people as members of certain groups. He also posted about his penis research some many months ago. I don't know why you waste your time debating his histrionic highness here instead of just migrating to Substack and saving your brain. He doesn't even deserve the name Alive because he's only going to attain the stability he strives for in a place among the fossils of our time. Since killing time isn't murder, it's suicide, I would certainly recommend you move, but judging by recent thread titles here, you all seem to be very pro-suicide, so I don't think I can argue on that basis with this crowd. What do Hı̇tler, Palestine stans like Aaron Bushnell, and 16ters have in common? Yeah, you're just asking for involuntary commitment at this point...

[on a peaceful hiatus]

you have announced your departure for the 100th time by now Birdbrain. maybe take your meds and get mental help. the one thing I agree with Dog is that you are Borderline and mentally unstable. Probably the most unstable user on this website actually. you are telling everyone to leave and it seems to me that everyone else is thinking "fucking leave already Birdbrain". maybe you have completely lost it at this point and just exist in a delusional state who knows. any rationality within your profile has long been gone and missing, if it was ever there to begin with. this extreme desire to post pictures that are completely unrelated to the topic must come from a desperate desire to be seen as unique or something but I'm not a psychologist

[Metamorph]

I literally don't care about you nor your written defamations of me, you know. You believe in a theory whose fundamental validity seems to almost certainly be missing and whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I literally don't care about you nor your written defamations of me, you know. You believe in a theory whose fundamental validity seems to almost certainly be missing and whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

you have posted 7000 fucking posts on a website you hate. this isn't normal behaviour. literally get help or quit. there's nothing else to say here. you are wasting your life on an obsession that doesn't benefit you

[Metamorph]

you have posted 7000 fucking posts on a website you hate. this isn't normal behaviour. literally get help or quit. there's nothing else to say here. you are wasting your life on an obsession that doesn't benefit you

Didn't you read the part where I said I didn't hate it, or are you stuck with your head too far up your rectum to see the light of day? Neither do I care about normal, you normie norm normalizer. Your emotional moods swirl and twirl too much for you to see what I say with a level head, and your psyche is starting to craze and crack. Have you heard of the opponent-process theory? The more you resist, the more it will hurt when you have to surrender. Your sense of self is slipping away and you don't know who you are anymore. I can't help you if you don't want it, but that's not my problem.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Didn't you read the part where I said I didn't hate it, or are you stuck with your head too far up your rectum to see the light of day? Neither do I care about normal, you normie norm normalizer. Your emotional moods swirl and twirl too much for you to see what I say with a level head, and your psyche is starting to craze and crack. Have you heard of the opponent-process theory? The more you resist, the more it will hurt when you have to surrender. Your sense of self is slipping away and you don't know who you are anymore. I can't help you if you don't want it, but that's not my problem.

I think I will manage without your help.

[Metamorph]

I think I will manage without your help.

You aren't managing now and you will get worse in the future, and I will laugh, Herr Hı̇tler.

[Metamorph]

You all think there are no consequences to your actions on the Internet, so you come in here and you expose your minds day in and day out to this and it rots them. Your minds are the most precious thing you have yet you're eager to throw them away just like Elon Musk is. You get mad at me for doing things to them that you can't understand even though you're the one who chose to expose yourself to my actions in the first place. Try being a good person next time and also being aware your actions have consequences.

[DogOfDanger]

@Birdbrain your soul is crying out for you to take your own advice and leave this place. It's good advice, you just can't give it to others without being a hypocrite, the only way to truly give it is to take it. And based on your yearnings I think it's more of an immediate need for you to take it than say... me, for instance. Though I will say that I've left this place before and I'm sure that will happen again... once it gets boring enough I think this will probably happen naturally. And admittedly it is getting quite boring, since compelling points seem to be few and far between. So it's not that I disagree with you. It's just inherently useless to talk about, if I really was ready to leave I'd just leave.

[Metamorph]

@Birdbrain your soul is crying out for you to take your own advice and leave this place. It's good advice, you just can't give it to others without being a hypocrite, the only way to truly give it is to take it. And based on your yearnings I think it's more of an immediate need for you to take it than say... me, for instance. Though I will say that I've left this place before and I'm sure that will happen again... once it gets boring enough I think this will probably happen naturally. And admittedly it is getting quite boring, since compelling points seem to be few and far between. So it's not that I disagree with you. It's just inherently useless to talk about, if I really was ready to leave I'd just leave.

You can believe that if you want.

[Bethanyclaire]

If you listen carefully to people they'll often tell you exactly who they are and how to handle them. Probably I should take this advice...

Yes, everyone is a wimp and you are the master, or so they will have you think it. And you enjoy making people feel worthless. And guess what, people never really change. They can develop integrity. But they don’t change their level of morality.

[ChaosConductor6669]

Why are people so concerned about what other consenting adults, or kids with kids, are doing with each other?

Obsessed egos much?

In essence, they have their own hang-ups about their own sexuality, they're not afraid of you or me, they're afraid of themselves. I knew what I liked at like 9, it wasn't because of anything unnatural - the restrictions put on me definitely were.

[Metamorph]

And now no one is even talking about the Israel-Palestine Conflict at all! I told you the level of discussion on this board is low. The level of discussion on this board is so low people literally don't notice if the discussion is entirely absent.

I don't hate this place, I'm trying to improve it, so telling me to leave again because I annoy you isn't going to work, but geez.

[DogOfDanger]

And you enjoy making people feel worthless.

I enjoy correcting bad ideas, doing so establishes justice and stability. I can't indulge someones bad ideas to spare their feelings of self-worth, that's just dysfunctional. We'd all end up misdirected and going down the wrong path if we adopted that approach... You just have to be more resilient, you can't expect the world to treat you with kids gloves all the time.
And there's a very big difference between criticizing a persons ideas and calling names or that sort of crap - which you actually do frequently. When I do that it's usually in direct retaliation and only if the person has really pushed it.

And guess what, people never really change. They can develop integrity. But they don’t change their level of morality.

Bad news for you, isn't it?
And what is the difference between ones integrity and ones level of morality...?

[Bethanyclaire]

I enjoy correcting bad ideas, doing so establishes justice and stability. I can't indulge someones bad ideas to spare their feelings of self-worth, that's just dysfunctional. We'd all end up misdirected and going down the wrong path if we adopted that approach... You just have to be more resilient, you can't expect the world to treat you with kids gloves all the time.
And there's a very big difference between criticizing a persons ideas and calling names or that sort of crap - which you actually do frequently. When I do that it's usually in direct retaliation and only if the person has really pushed it.


Bad news for you, isn't it?
And what is the difference between ones integrity and ones level of morality...?

Famous last words of a narc. I am resilient you fool. I started that discussion on iq because I knew, ultimately, if necessary, I could take someone like you down. So many people are reading thinking, yeah she helped him, but she helped the people he hates more. I didn't want this argument, it did nothing for me but make me feel shit, and I didn't see it coming. But when it happened, I had to make sure something marvellous came out of it. Bye.

[DogOfDanger]

Famous last words of a narc. I am resilient you fool. I started that discussion on iq because I knew, ultimately, if necessary, I could take someone like you down. So many people are reading thinking, yeah she helped him, but she helped the people he hates more. I didn't want this argument, it did nothing for me but make me feel shit, and I didn't see it coming. But when it happened, I had to make sure something marvellous came out of it. Bye.

The term narc is so overused at this point you people have almost killed the term.
Apparently you think you've achieved something incredible by our conversations - I have no idea what that is... mere shit talking is an achievement I suppose. It's not rational, whatever it is - but if it makes you feel like an accomplished person... well I suppose it's a big step for you. Little bit odd but ok. Kind of like the little engine that could, or something. You're certainly not very resilient if mere shit talking is major emotional progress for you.
Carry onward!

[ChaosConductor6669]

The term narc is so overused at this point you people have almost killed the term.

For them Se = Bad. This forum is quite literally full of 5/10 Beta NF men (some women too, but there is little difference - I consider all NFs to be delicate flowers that I don't want to trample on by accident now).

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

the nazis did the genocide to force the jews to go there when they weren't supposed to - the bible says they can live in Israel after Jesus returns IIRC. he hasn't returned. the war is predicted too. this has been planned by satanists thousands of years ago. im not pro war.

[ChaosConductor6669]

It's almost as if all wars are caused by religion and being religious is in essence being pro war whether you realize it or not.

[ChaosConductor6669]

You mean like the religion of communism?

It has killed plenty of people; it's right up there with Covid, Syphilis, and that German painter guy (not Alive).

[Bethanyclaire]

For them Se = Bad.

not for me.

[Bethanyclaire]

@DogOfDanger I think @necrosebud learnt her lesson it’s ok or should I call her slug girl..

[DogOfDanger]

I think you should just move on and go do something else.

[Bethanyclaire]

I think you should just move on and go do something else.

No one cares what you think.

[DogOfDanger]

Well then why are you pinging me? Go away

[DogOfDanger]

Because I care what you think..

@DogOfDanger obviously I was only joking..

Well if you didn't care what I think you wouldn't have bothered to ping me to ensure I knew that, right? And you would have gone away by now. So... keep trying

[Adam Strange]

[ChaosConductor6669]

[Bethanyclaire]

he 'liked' my joke comment..

[xerx]

Here's a very recent video (post Oct-7) of a Hamas leader discussing the prospect of a two state solution. And this has been Hamas's official stance since its founding, it's the same thing their charter says... this stance is consistent with Islam which decrees that Allah granted Muslims the holy land, and establishes that Jews are the enemy of Muslims:



If Hamas's opposition to Israel were merely socio-political there would be no rational explanation for this negotiating stance. This stance does not benefit the Palestinians from a socio-political standpoint. For proof... just look at the current state of affairs in Gaza, which this stance does nothing to rectify and infact indirectly brought about. This stance only makes sense through the lense of fundamentalist Islam. And in the Hamas charter the stance is justified with reference to Islam. So there's really not much to be skeptical about here.

The civilian casualties, land grabs, "occupation" and social fallout are consequences of the war between these nations... The core problem is the Arab leaders led their nations to war, and still to this day insist on war. They refuse to negotiate... this is the problem that has caused all the other problems.

So allow me to repeat myself: There are many factors that motivate Hamas, including economic, social and geopolitical factors... but when you discount the religious factor this is a catastrophic error because it completely changes how we assess the political situation. One thing that's significant about religious dogma is you can't change it or reason with it.

The conflict follows from their negotiating stance, because it is essentially a war declaration: either the state of Israel agrees to dissolve or Hamas will reclaim it through force... period. And that entails Israeli citizens being kicked out of their homes, btw. That's Hamas's official negotiating stance. And the PLO had the exact same stance, and it was justified by Islam then too. Incidentally, it was the Arab states that declared the war in 1948, and their losing that war led to the Israeli expansion. That expansion is completely justified because a nation is not obligated to cede territory back to, and in so doing strengthen, an enemy who attacks it and refuses to make peace / continues to openly call for its destruction. A nation should not so casually declare war on neighboring nations, but if it loses it's going to suffer consequences... if it continues to declare war there will be continued consequences. This should be expected by a nation making war declarations.

It's pretty easy to selectively reinterpret history in a way that benefits you... especially when an issue is complicated and consists of multiple events over such a long timespan. When two parties have their own sets of historical facts it's very difficult to tell what's true. But ideas are not so shrouded in mystery, and on this level we can see plainly who the aggressor is... It's the party discounting all possibility of a two state solution publicly. It's the party adhering to a murderous, megalomaniacal religious delusion... it's the party that will only accept, as final outcome, the complete dissolution or obliteration of the opposing party. Ideas have a natural end... ideas have consequences.

That's not Hamas' negotiating stance. Hamas has agreed to a two-state solution and has for years. Its 2017 charter calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state along the 1967 border, which is a de facto acceptance of Israel's continued existence.

* https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...l-1967-borders

* https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hamas

Whether or not Hamas wants Israel to exist is irrelevant. What people want and what they're willing to tolerate are different things, the latter being the more correct marker of their intent.



From the Wilson Center document, this is the relevant section Re. Hamas' new charter:

In 2017, a revised Hamas manifesto included three departures from the 1988 charter, former U.S. diplomat Aaron David Miller told The Islamists. First, Hamas accepted the establishment of a Palestinian state separate from Israel —although only provisionally. Its statement on principles and policies said, “Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.” Second, it attempted to distinguish between Jews or Judaism and modern Zionism. Hamas said that its fight was against the “racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist” Zionist project, Israel, but not against Judaism or Jews. The updated platform also lacked some of the anti-Semitic language of the 1988 charter. Third, the document did not reference the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, from which Hamas was originally an offshoot.

* Hamas draws a clear distinction between Zionism and Judaism.

* Without accepting Israel's spiritual right to exist, Hamas is willing to accept a Palestinian rump state along the June 1967 border (which is a coming-to-terms with the fact that Israel will continue to exist).

* Hamas won't abandon the right of return of refugees

You can disagree with Hamas' characterization of Israel as a racist and colonialist project, you can reject the idea of the Palestinians' right of return, you can question the sincerity of Hamas' rejection of antisemitism, and you can even loathe Hamas (I confess that I personally have very little use for them), but I don't believe that you can argue that Hamas is unwilling to (grudgingly) negotiate.

[xerx]

I'm assuming by 'ethnic cleansing' you mean the expulsion of people from an area, not their mass extermination, that hasn't happened.
All of these actions can be justified by the fact the nations are at war, and Israel did not start the war, nor has it been their negotiating stance that it should continue... so why should I care for the suffering of a nation that declares war on its neighbor? That's what I want to see happen - I want that rogue nation to lose, to have its land taken away, to be completely disempowered, and left unable to wage the war they intend to. I'd also like to see the government of such a nation overthrown... and if the people continue to reelect / support such governments I suppose they're willingly calling down the worlds wrath upon themselves - such a population would really have to be brainwashed by Islam ... but there's nothing that can be done to shield such a nation or a people from the consequences of their own repeated actions. You really just have to hope they'll eventually break and learn better - you certainly can't empower them while they continue to call for more war, that's just completely foolish and will only lead to a greater conflict.

Israel created this situation when it conquered the Palestinian territories in 1967, when it launched an unprovoked war of aggression against its neighbors. If people have the right to defend themselves through whatever means necessary (which is what I keep hearing ad nauseam), and if that principle applies unreservedly to Israel's quite plausible genocide, it surely also applies to the Palestinians' attack on October 7th.

I don't know about you, but that's not the world that I want to live in.

[xerx]

I'm more pessimistic about this than optimistic, I see the creation Palestinian state as precarious. This also isn't South Africa which although containing many similar problems, is a completely different sort of conflict.

Ultimately will the Palestinians have the military capacity to bleed Israel out, will Israel over extend into the north in a fight with Hezbollah. Neither Hamas or the PLO at this moment does not have the capacity to establish a state or fight off Israel without massive loss of life. Right now, I see any ceasefire as impossible to sustain, Israel will start up attacks and bombing as soon as it has the capacity to do so. The hostages are mere bargaining chips for military maneuvering. I understand the political movement asking for a ceasefire, but I don't see a permanent one as being possible without the removal of Netanyahu, which seems to be underway at least at some level.

I do believe Hamas has the capacity to survive this and in fact from the behavior of the IDF, the purpose of this war is to destroy all civilian infrastructure in Gaza, kill 100-500k Palestinian's mostly thru starvation and create a bad enough situation for a exodus, I'm leaving out probably a lot of specifics but this is my general interpretation of what is happening. This is the Israeli intent and the basis for how they have conducted this war.

While I don't know is if Israel has the capacity to fulfill it's objectives as I have outlined with mounting political and military pressure, this is merely the beginning in my opinion of what I see as a very long term widening conflict in the Middle East.

In many ways the Global south are still in the middle long term revolutionary processes that have yet to stabilized into new cultural, political and religious movements. The west is just beginning to undergo this process as the collapse of the west accelerates. The west is psychologically desperate while maintaining a insecure resistance to change. Israel is just a more overt example of this.

The revolutionary groups within the Middle East have evolved incredibly fast within the last 30-40 years, mostly due to constant imperial pressure from the west. These are incredibly painful and devastating changes due to usually mass casualties and destruction, yet within these shifts the drive to expel the imperial forces and influences is consistant. Only when a suitably strong ideological and material sustainable revolution occurs will there be sustainable peace in the Middle East, one not subject to imperial designs.

Honestly, I don't believe that there is a military solution to Israel's predicament.

The revolutionary groups within the Middle East have evolved incredibly fast within the last 30-40 years, mostly due to constant imperial pressure from the west.

Yep, the natives are growing in strength and sophistication.

[Bethanyclaire]

@DogOfDanger coward

[Park]

Max killed it at the WNDC in DC the other week.



This is how a man with unwavering integrity and dedication to the truth speaks.

[Park]

In other news, some positive news:

[Northstar]

Max killed it at the WNDC in DC the other week.



This is how a man with unwavering integrity and dedication to the truth speaks.

Why are you a communist?

[Bethanyclaire]

And just to be clear, there are some more ‘obvious’ type of assholes on this site too, the ones who often know they’re an asshole, but don’t care, not that they necessarily want people to believe they are. They usually just pass by though.

[DogOfDanger]

That's not Hamas' negotiating stance. Hamas has agreed to a two-state solution and has for years. Its 2017 charter calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state along the 1967 border ...

* https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...l-1967-borders

* https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hamas

At this point I can see you twisting information...
The video you're responding to - of a senior Hamas official detailing Hamas's negotiating stance - is saying the same thing as your 1st article... but you've conveniently glossed over the part where the Hamas official says the agreement is one step in a long term strategy to reclaim all the land. In your article Israel says the same thing... So we now have sources from both sides informing us that Hamas's stance toward Israel hasn't really changed. Hamas still refuses to acknowledge Israels existence... what kind of basis for an agreement is that? You didn't address this... you ignored it and acted like Hamas is negotiating in good faith... You're not debating in good faith.

You seem to believe you're the official Hamas spokesperson now, you can just assert that they're negotiating in good faith as if your word makes it so.

Whether or not Hamas wants Israel to exist is irrelevant.

Why on earth would Israel give Hamas a giant amount of land if Hamas continues to desire Israels destruction?
This is the most critical issue for the negotiation, without the good faith interest of both negotiating parties an agreement is as valuable as the paper it's written on.
Irrelevant...? That is the most you have to say about the most critical point of the negotiation - it's irrelevant. Very telling.
I advise you to never negotiate anything important on behalf of a company, or yourself for that matter. You have no idea how leverage in a negotiation works.

What people want and what they're willing to tolerate are different things, the latter being the more correct marker of their intent.

Willingness to accept an agreement where you receive giant amounts of land and provide basically nothing in return is not any kind of evidence of good intent or tolerance. However, continued unwillingness to acknowledge Israels existence is evidence of bad intent. You have absolutely no basis for making claims about Hamas's intent here. You are not the spokesperson for Hamas. We don't need your opinion, we can just listen to the senior Hamas official explain that they intend to reclaim all the land in time. And it's a irrational opinion, it is plain to see that Hamas has no intention of making peace. Could not be more obvious.

Your own article says this as plain as day:
"“Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.”"

So basically in this deal Hamas does absolutely nothing for Israel, won't cede it a single inch of land or acknowledge its existence... and Israel just gives all this land, including its capital, to Hamas, and you present this as proof of some "good faith negotiation". Your argument is absolutely absurd.
All this proves is that Hamas, even when the deal of a lifetime is on the table, is completely irrational and cannot even pretend for a moment they acknowledge Israels existence - due to their religious dogma - this is not rational.

From the Wilson Center document, this is the relevant section Re. Hamas' new charter:

* Hamas draws a clear distinction between Zionism and Judaism. .

Yes, I am well aware that the main point of contention is the land... but that land is holy land, this is a religious issue, Zionism is not a secular concept... Zionism is relevant insofar as the Jews have occupied holy Jerusalem.

* Without accepting Israel's spiritual right to exist, Hamas is willing to accept a Palestinian rump state along the June 1967 border (which is a coming-to-terms with the fact that Israel will continue to exist).

Spiritual right to exist...? Well what on earth does that mean? You certainly selected those words very carefully, didn't you? Again you like to act as if you're Hamas's official spokesperson - where did you find this language "spiritual right to exist"...? Hamas said they still do not acknowledge Israels right to exist. This is referring to the nation of Israel, not some ethereal body of Israel. Israels right to exist is what they said, you're obviously trying to twist the phrasing here to make it seem like... this denial of Israels right to exist is some inconsequential nebulous spiritual concept. Just yet more lies, and not even good ones, just desperate fail attempts.

Its 2017 charter calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state along the 1967 border, which is a de facto acceptance of Israel's continued existence.

There is nothing in that arrangement that gives any allowance to Israel or insurance for Israels continued existence, infact it explicitly refuses to acknowledge Israels existence, you are just making this stuff up at this point. On what basis could you possibly make this statement? Did you not read their quote? Go read it again, this is the first line in their 2017 public statement:
"Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However... (we are willing to take Israels land while giving nothing in return. Aren't we charitable?)"

It's amazing that you are actually trying to claim the mere fact Hamas is willing to accept a donation of land from Israel is somehow proof they'd accept Israels existence, despite their explicit statement to the contrary... but this demonstrates the level of sheer denial and delusion you suffer from with respect to this issue.

[Park]

Why are you a communist?

I am?

[Northstar]

I am?

Considering you seem to hold a tankie in high regard