Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by ovary

regardless of who negotiated the ceasefire, the timing clearly suggests that trump's ascention was the deciding factor in pulling the lever now. .

biden's legacy on this remains an abysmal and disgusting failure of leadership.

we'll see what happens next. doesn't seem to me that the lunatic israeli rightwingers are going to just give up on their genocide. we'll see how trump responds when they start the killing machine back up again.biden was extremely consistent in his unwavering support for the genocide. trump (for better or worse, probably worse) is way less predictable.

game respects game

couple of authoritarian freaks

[MyOneAndOnly]

Netanyaha simply ran out of people to kill

[Disco King]

The only reason I can think of for Bibi not being pissed at Trump for announcing his Gaza thing before Hamas even returned all the hostages is that the hard right that's propping him up in government want the hostilities to continue so they can wipe out Hamas and have been pressuring Bibi to end the ceasefire. And Bibi needs their continued support to stay in power and pause some legal proceedings against him.

But I don't want to believe that's the reason he welcomes the plan, because I don't want to believe that anyone is ghoulish enough to happily see their own citizens remain the hostages of a violent terrorist group just to save his own job and cling onto power for a bit longer. But why else wouldn't Netanyahu want to at least wait until the hostage trade was complete to enthusiastically endorse Trump's plan?

Folks more familiar with the politics there: is there another explanation for this, or is Netanyahu really that callous and opportunist? Are Israelis pissed about this?

[ovary]

my read is trump says his looney shit to get the media talking about and normalizing displacement as a legit option (without calling it ethnic cleansing, and the media has obliged). then trump tries to strike some deal with egypt and jordan, giving them development money in exchange for taking refugees. duno if that will work. but then US gives israel the green light to push them all out themselves. israel just annexes it and builds the riviera or whatever with private US investment.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Disco King

Folks more familiar with the politics there: is there another explanation for this, or is Netanyahu really that callous and opportunist? Are Israelis pissed about this?

I think you already know the answer to the first part.

And yes many Israelis are pissed. Remember Netanyahu is not a popular leader and was not a popular leader before October 7th either. At least the people I am in contact with, who are left wing, have blamed Netanyahu for purposely not bringing the hostages home to prolong the war since at least last winter

[MyOneAndOnly]

Bibi would vaporize every Palestinian in the west bank and Gaza if he thought he could get away with it.

the end goal of much of the right wing in Israel is the complete ethnic cleansing of the whole country. They know it will take generations. But if they can get Trump to rid the of 2 million people they'll happily accept the offer

[Elphenor]

the monthly terrorist attacks would just be part of the tourist attraction I guess

[Disco King]

So, interrupting a ceasefire and hostage swap deal to announce an ethnic-cleansing plan, and giving a country tons of aid as it cuts off humanitarian supplies to a region = fine, according to Trumpers.

Refusing to negotiate with a country that is getting annexed by a larger country because their leader correctly points out that they are being annexed by a hostile force, and refusing any deal that doesn't allow the hostile force to keep what they took (with no security guarantees against them taking more later) and that would require the invaded nation to give you half of their precious minerals in return for old munitions you gave them (that you already had lying around, weren't going to use, and would have cost you money to decommission) shows your commitment to pragmatism and peace, according to Trumpers.

I can't tell if the contrast between the Israel/Palestine policy and the Russia/Ukraine policy is bad because it's hypocritical, or if its bad because it is 100% consistent (the consistent rule seems to be: the bigger nation should get everything it wants without compromise).

It's funny: I heard from some accelerationist commies that they wanted Trump to win because maybe progressives would care more about Palestine if it was "the bad guy" enabling crimes against it instead of a Democrat. Welp, I haven't been hearing of as much pro-Palestinian organization since Trump won. Maybe because it's harder to concentrate effort on that cause when it's just one of a million crises this guy is causing. It's almost like letting things get worse makes things worse. Whodathunk?

The people who seem to understand this are the accelerationist tech billionaires who want things to get worse not because it will cause a collapse of the system followed by a utopia, but because the bad outcome where the state is totally crippled and the rich are free to do what they want is exactly the outcome they want. It's not an intermediary stage, its the goal.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Disco King

So, interrupting a ceasefire and hostage swap deal to announce an ethnic-cleansing plan, and giving a country tons of aid as it cuts off humanitarian supplies to a region = fine, according to Trumpers.

Refusing to negotiate with a country that is getting annexed by a larger country because their leader correctly points out that they are being annexed by a hostile force, and refusing any deal that doesn't allow the hostile force to keep what they took (with no security guarantees against them taking more later) and that would require the invaded nation to give you half of their precious minerals in return for old munitions you gave them (that you already had lying around, weren't going to use, and would have cost you money to decommission) shows your commitment to pragmatism and peace, according to Trumpers.

I can't tell if the contrast between the Israel/Palestine policy and the Russia/Ukraine policy is bad because it's hypocritical, or if its bad because it is 100% consistent (the consistent rule seems to be: the bigger nation should get everything it wants without compromise).

It's funny: I heard from some accelerationist commies that they wanted Trump to win because maybe progressives would care more about Palestine if it was "the bad guy" enabling crimes against it instead of a Democrat. Welp, I haven't been hearing of as much pro-Palestinian organization since Trump won. Maybe because it's harder to concentrate effort on that cause when it's just one of a million crises this guy is causing. It's almost like letting things get worse makes things worse. Whodathunk?

The people who seem to understand this are the accelerationist tech billionaires who want things to get worse not because it will cause a collapse of the system followed by a utopia, but because the bad outcome where the state is totally crippled and the rich are free to do what they want is exactly the outcome they want. It's not an intermediary stage, its the goal.

but my egg prices. Elon much genius. government waste.

[redbreegull]

people who truly believe that increasing suffering or the bad guy winning is good because it will result in some kind of revolutionary backlash are mentally retarded, have never been in a history class, and should have clown noses surgically attached to their faces so we can identify them in public

[Elphenor]

They believe that online but plan to follow through with exactly zero sacrifice for this imaginary revolution.

[topleybird]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

people who truly believe that increasing suffering or the bad guy winning is good because it will result in some kind of revolutionary backlash are mentally [r word]

Hey so, I've been so curious to see a resurgence of this word, which I thought polite society had agreed was offensive. But in the last like year or so, suddenly everyone's saying it again. And I don't mean you by this, but some people online seem so excited to be saying it as often as possible.

What are your thoughts on this? Did you ever stop using it, and if so, was it sort of under duress, or did you agree with it at the time? If you stopped, when did you start, and was a conscious decision? I don't mean any of this as an attack, I'm just so curious what, like, happened.

[Disco King]

On the one hand, it feels harder to replace the r-word with an alternative, because most alternatives don't have the same feel. "Bro, that's ludicrous!" "Are you silly?" "That guy is foolish." "You absolute ninny!" Like, it doesn't quite hit the spot.

On the other hand, the other day, I thought of calling an, um, extremely shortsighted and simple person the r-word, but then I thought about a random nice Down's syndrome person going, "what the fuck does this have to do with us? Like, you see some Trump voter you don't like, and the first connection you make is to guys like me? Bro, I'm just here making myself a big whipped-cream sandwich and not bothering anybody. What did we ever do to you?" And I just couldn't really bring myself to use the word. I mean, I know a real person with Down's syndrome might phrase things a bit differently from my hypothetical one, but that's not the point.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by topleybird

Hey so, I've been so curious to see a resurgence of this word, which I thought polite society had agreed was offensive. But in the last like year or so, suddenly everyone's saying it again. And I don't mean you by this, but some people online seem so excited to be saying it as often as possible.

What are your thoughts on this? Did you ever stop using it, and if so, was it sort of under duress, or did you agree with it at the time? If you stopped, when did you start, and was a conscious decision? I don't mean any of this as an attack, I'm just so curious what, like, happened.

yeah, it's not a nice word and I probably shouldn't use it but like DK said I've struggled to find something that seems to throw around the same weight. without going into a stupid dive about how words change over time and things like idiot or jagaloon used to mean the same thing, I think our society is negotiating what the offensiveness of the word is. I was probably one of the later people to give it up but I did for awhile. I think this particular usage was inspired by Green Day calling JD Vance retarded onstage which really tickled me

answer: I dunno man. It does bother a lot of people and that's a mostly good enough reason to not use it. I do have a personal affinity for the word, not really sure why, and it's kind of hilarious to me that re: the green day thing all the outlets are writing variations of "Green Day switch up lyric to mock Vance" except Fox news whose headline was like "GREEN DAY THROW SLUR AT VICE PRESIDENT." Cause comedy is back, baby, like Elon keeps telling us. So my worst instinct is to be like ok then unleash the floodgates, let's see who are the whiners and free speech advocates when all the lefties who step on themselves to not offend anyone just toss pc out the window and go rabid on these guys.

For me I think it was probably about 3-4 years ago I noticed people started to use it again. When I was in recovery this pretty smart dude who talked all the time about his kids with intellectual disabilities unflinchingly called something "absolutely fucking retarded" and that did set off some linguistic curiosity in my brain, like clearly to some people, I would guess a lot of people, the word has no association with mental disability, it's just become a way to express that something is inexpressibly stupid, like calling something crazy or insane, which also are offensive if you really think about it. I also feel like Europeans use it more, but that's just anecdotal. I kind of assumed it was like how they love to say cunt, which in the US is considered one of the worst slurs, but Brits are appalled at spaz and spastic, which most Americans have never even heard of as a slur.

[redbreegull]

ultimate best response I ever heard from someone on this though was years ago when I worked in a middle school. This kid was like, "Maaaaan school is retarded," and without missing a beat this teacher was like, "HEY MAN. I know some retarded people who would not appreciate being compared to school."

[redbreegull]

but yeah I really don't know what the answer is. language is fluid, mutable, and negotiable, and it's not until even the last couple hundred years that dictionaries have existed to try and codify languages. 20 years ago every other word on this board was the r word or f*gg*t, one has clearly made a societal comeback whereas the other has been widely recognized as unspeakable and stayed out of fashion. language is crazy.

calling things gay seems to be back as well

[Disco King]

Re: the Green Day thing

I think there is an appetite for a leftism that isn't politically correct, because somewhere along the line, the right-wing people have been able to re-brand themselves as the "rebels" (even when they're sucking authoritarian dick and defending the status quo) and the left-wing people, because they care about people, have become the pearl-clutchers lecturing people on norms of civility like some high-school guidance counselor. "Um, excuse me, but you should really use person-first language" and "that's not funny" and all that. I think a lot of us want to return to the days where the conservatives were the stuffy nerds telling people to follow the rules (thank you Ben Shapiro for keeping that alive) and the leftists were the ones who said "up yours, granny" and could set a jukebox to their favourite track just by hitting it. It's like, you turn on liberal late-night, see Seth Meyers doing an epic takedown of Drumph by calling him "Pumpkin Spice Palpatine," and you're like, fuck, didn't we used to be edgy?

But at the same time, it is hard to be edgy without hurting others in the crossfire. Like, speaking truth to power by calling a powerful person the r-word, but then that also insults intellectually disabled people. When your ideology is something other than "fuck you, I got mine, jack," then every group you care about the wellbeing of is a group that you're being mindful not to hurt.

Re: linguistic change

I do wonder why with words like "lame," we can go "well, it used to mean physically disabled, but it doesn't mean that anymore, so it's not offensive to use as an insult," but the same can't be said for the r-word. Perhaps because the meaning of "lame" changed before there was a social effort to stop using slurs, whereas the r-word was still in use for intellectually disabled people when we began that effort.

Re: faux outrage from the right

Yeah, it is disingenuous when the right wing criticizes opponents for behaviour they don't otherwise care about when they think it will be a "gotcha." Like, they don't care about the r-word, but they know liberals are supposed to, so if a liberal says it, they act appalled. Or, hell, how a right-wing cause has never been "being respectful about women's appearances," and yet when Michelle Wolf made fun of Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Fox tried to spin it as Wolf making fun of Sanders' appearance… even though Wolf was actually complimenting Sanders' makeup skill (which is different from her body itself) while making fun of Sanders' tendency to lie. Like they had to twist one thing they don't care about into a different thing they don't care about just to go "shows you how tolerant the left is!" The then-press secretary of a man who literally compared some women's appearances to that of pigs. It's wild how they don't believe anything, and it's only about winning or losing rather than values.

[redbreegull]

for whatever it's worth, I have encountered people that think "lame" and "dumb" and "crazy" are offensive. I don't think these views are widely held, but they do upset some people who still feel they are attacks on disabled or sick people.

[yo soy el mejor]

fap fap fap

[topleybird]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

for whatever it's worth, I have encountered people that think "lame" and "dumb" and "crazy" are offensive. I don't think these views are widely held, but they do upset some people who still feel they are attacks on disabled or sick people.

Yeah. What I relate to most about what you said re: "the R word" is that there isn't quite a suitable replacement for it, and also, there are people online who'll yell at you for calling someone stupid by any synonym. I get where that's coming from, but surely there's some way we can all agree to describe someone who hasn't put a lot of thought into an idea they've expressed. I see "this person has brain worms" a lot, which is funny, but surely. Surely. If I stubbornly insist "tariffs are immediately good for our economy and will drive down car prices" and that everyone else is a "woke fake news sheep," then, surely? Surely we don't have to dance around a description of me and my ideas.

If I can't call someone an idiot then, like, what are we doing here. What is online discourse without insults?

I do bristle at the R word itself, and I do see it being used with apparent glee lately from people who love that they're going to offend people with it, but I at least get where some folks would feel it's passed beyond its original meaning to something broader.

[ovary]

well after a brief period where the R word was back in, now it's overplayed and a but gauche. RIP