[Lady Bliss]

the broken, on 03 May 2024 - 01:23 PM, said:

You know, I was actually kind of impressed by how this happened (note: this may age poorly). The people in Iran and Israel knew how to make their point without raising the stakes too high, and accordingly, we're not in WW3 yet.

I have no doubt in my mind that it is coming considering the US interference by sending money and weapons to Israel. Sorry to be a gloomy gus.

[Mentalist]

Lady Bliss, on 03 May 2024 - 01:41 PM, said:

the broken, on 03 May 2024 - 01:23 PM, said:

You know, I was actually kind of impressed by how this happened (note: this may age poorly). The people in Iran and Israel knew how to make their point without raising the stakes too high, and accordingly, we're not in WW3 yet.

I have no doubt in my mind that it is coming considering the US interference by sending money and weapons to Israel. Sorry to be a gloomy gus.

Iran doesn't have nukes. Israel won't use its nukes. Hence, no WW3 from this corner of the world. Though things might be messy for a while.

[Abyss]

Am not so sure. Iran's only even slightly effective weapon against Israel is Hezbollah in Lebanon. They can do all the cruise missiles and drone strikes they like knowing full well they will do little to zero damage but gain the optics of striking out against the evil zionist homeland oppressing their Muslim brothers and sisters. To a limited extent, they gain some PR to offset their bigger problem of the US/Saudi/Jordan/Egypt loose alliance in the Shia v Sunni conflict.

Israel can hit back without doing the level of damage everyone knows they can, because they don't 'need' to retaliate against a strike that did nothing and was mostly stopped by other Muslim states. They - and everyone else - know they could level Iran's military, infrastructure, or anything else whenever they want. The low key retaliation was more or less a reminder.

So the Iran v Israel conflict becomes little more than sideshow or distraction while the much more problematic Palestinian conflict continues.

[Lady Bliss]

Wow. Netanyahu is shutting down, and blocking Al Jazeera and any other foreign networks that he deems to be “inciting” protests and Hamas. He is even confiscating all of their equipment. Sounds even more like he is echoing what the nazis did to his own people.

[Abyss]

Lady Bliss, on 05 May 2024 - 12:08 PM, said:

Wow. Netanyahu is shutting down, and blocking Al Jazeera and any other foreign networks that he deems to be "inciting" protests and Hamas. He is even confiscating all of their equipment.

I'm amazed he took this long. Won't be surprised if CNN and others are next. He's losing what little international sympathy he still has by the minute and just keeps doubling down.

Quote

Sounds even more like he is echoing what the nazis did to his own people.

TAhead of their final solution the nazis shut down Jewish newspapers and gatherings and put a stop to Jewish businesses that required people to move around between places, so while i do not quite agree that the metaphor fits - the nazis were planning for extermination, Natayahu is waging a PR campaign, badly - it's still disturbing to see. Not new tho, Israel has cracked down on foreign press and specifically Al Jazeera in the past.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Abyss, on 06 May 2024 - 03:36 PM, said:

TAhead of their final solution the nazis shut down Jewish newspapers and gatherings and put a stop to Jewish businesses that required people to move around between places, so while i do not quite agree that the metaphor fits - the nazis were planning for extermination, Natayahu is waging a PR campaign, badly - it's still disturbing to see. Not new tho, Israel has cracked down on foreign press and specifically Al Jazeera in the past.

In preparation for the invasion of Rafah, and to try to restrict professional journalism on other atrocities... seems closer to preparing the way for extermination (or at least more atrocities) than a generic "PR campaign". Or perhaps you think the combination of other journalistic outfits + internet posts by non-journalists are more than enough? When journalists are being slaughtered by the IDF...

Quote

The United Nations finalized a report last week about the killing of Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah in southern Lebanon, concluding that the attack was from an Israeli tank that had fired at a group of "clearly identifiable journalists," a violation of international law. CNN also reported, based on video from the scene, that the journalists were wearing body armor clearly labeled "PRESS."

Questions mount over Israel's killing of journalists covering the war on Hamas | CNN Business

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 06 May 2024 - 04:05 PM

[Abyss]

Azath Vitr (D, on 06 May 2024 - 04:00 PM, said:

Abyss, on 06 May 2024 - 03:36 PM, said:

TAhead of their final solution the nazis shut down Jewish newspapers and gatherings and put a stop to Jewish businesses that required people to move around between places, so while i do not quite agree that the metaphor fits - the nazis were planning for extermination, Natayahu is waging a PR campaign, badly - it's still disturbing to see. Not new tho, Israel has cracked down on foreign press and specifically Al Jazeera in the past.

In preparation for the invasion of Rafah, and to try to restrict professional journalism on other atrocities... seems closer to preparing the way for extermination (or at least more atrocities) than a generic "PR campaign". Or perhaps you think the combination of other journalistic outfits + internet posts by non-journalists are more than enough? When journalists are being slaughtered by the IDF...

Quote

The United Nations finalized a report last week about the killing of Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah in southern Lebanon, concluding that the attack was from an Israeli tank that had fired at a group of "clearly identifiable journalists," a violation of international law. CNN also reported, based on video from the scene, that the journalists were wearing body armor clearly labeled "PRESS."

Questions mount over Israel's killing of journalists covering the war on Hamas | CNN Business

Or perhaps you think you're clever enough to start an argument. Nah, not gonna play.

[the broken]

Seems like the obvious parallel is the US in Afghanistan.

Hamas have supposedly agreed to something, but weirdly no one knows what the terms are. They don't have much incentive to agree to anything, so I'm not sure if this means anything or is just theater.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

the broken, on 07 May 2024 - 11:30 AM, said:

Seems like the obvious parallel is the US in Afghanistan.

Hamas have supposedly agreed to something, but weirdly no one knows what the terms are. They don't have much incentive to agree to anything, so I'm not sure if this means anything or is just theater.

Quote

According to a Western diplomat familiar with the negotiations, there was only one difference between the deal agreed to by Hamas yesterday and the terms proposed by Israel a few days earlier[...] while Israel agreed to include a reference to a period of "sustainable calm", it wants that period to expire after the deal is implemented; Hamas wants the "sustainable calm" to continue after the implementation period.

Spoiler

Sustainable calm is a weakened version of ceasefire. The Western diplomat with whom I discussed yesterday's events initially thought Israel might be convinced to agree to the deal. After all, it would always be possible to find a reason to break the "calm", perhaps arguing that it had become unsustainable. But even the weakened formula turned out to be unacceptable to Netanyahu and his ministers. [...]


What the Rafah invasion will certainly bring is more suffering for the people in Gaza. This time around there is nowhere to go. [...]


This may turn out to be an error of historical proportions. Already [...] the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement no one could have imagined just a few days earlier. It called for the "international community to intervene immediately to stop the genocide carried out by the occupation forces against defenceless civilians in the occupied Palestinian territories". It was the kind of incendiary language Saudi Arabia has typically jailed its own citizens for using.

The assault on Rafah has begun - New Statesman

Quote

Rafah assault threatens to be Israel breaking point for [US] Democrats

[...] could be a sea-change moment for Democrats on Israel and [...] Netanyahu

[...] Biden administration "[... will] probably will start conditioning or curtailing arms."

Rafah assault threatens to be Israel breaking point for Democrats (axios.com)

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 07 May 2024 - 01:52 PM

[the broken]

Turned out they agreed to something that wasn't on the table, so that means pretty much nothing.

[Abyss]

the broken, on 07 May 2024 - 05:55 PM, said:

Turned out they agreed to something that wasn't on the table, so that means pretty much nothing.

Now they get to scream 'we agreed and evil Israel broke the ceasefire' for a day or two just as the move on Rafah hits.

And naturally, instead of turning around and countering with 'here's what was actually on the table, take it or leave it' Israel moves on Rafah.

...it's almost like neither side really wants to end this.

[Lady Bliss]

Would you trust Israel if you were a Palestinian at this point?

[worry]

Guarantors of the agreement were Egypt, Qatar, the United States, and the UN -- Text Here -- so it's not absurd that Hamas would have considered it an offer with some weight. What is absurd, I suppose, is believing any good faith in Israel's negotiations. Or pretending Hamas -- or the remaining captives, for that matter -- have much of anything to do with Butcher Netanyahu's continued extermination of Gazans. Barely even a pretext anymore. They were going to flatten Rafah, as they have the rest of Gaza, regardless of what the agreement said.

On a separate note, much respect to this young man (and everyone with him). Fantastic extemporaneous thinking:

[Abyss]

Lady Bliss, on 08 May 2024 - 02:59 PM, said:

Would you trust Israel if you were a Palestinian at this point?

No one is asking "Palestinians" to agree to anything. It's Hamas. Those guys who did the massacre that started this entire mess knowing full well what would happen next. Trust doesn't even enter into the discussion. It's only about comparative advantage and opportunity. Neither parties nor peoples have had any reason for trust in for decades. "Palestinians" didn't start this, didn't further it, didn't want it, and if anyone had asked Palestinians what they thought about a bunch of Hamas' plan for killing civilians in the first place, Palestinians probably would told them it was a bad idea. With clubs if not something more permanent.

[Abyss]

worry, on 08 May 2024 - 04:17 PM, said:

Guarantors of the agreement were Egypt, Qatar, the United States, and the UN -- Text Here -- so it's not absurd that Hamas would have considered it an offer with some weight. What is absurd, I suppose, is believing any good faith in Israel's negotiations. Or pretending Hamas -- or the remaining captives, for that matter -- have much of anything to do with Butcher Netanyahu's continued extermination of Gazans. Barely even a pretext anymore. They were going to flatten Rafah, as they have the rest of Gaza, regardless of what the agreement said.
...

Hamas knew exactly what it was doing. Guarantors are all well and good except that Natanyahu and co have been clear they are far from caring what even perpetual ally US thinks. They can claim good faith and count on Israel to do the wrong thing regardless.


I wonder about the scope of Netanyahu's error here. The US has shown that they can mobilize SA, Egypt, and (!) Jordan. With that relatively stable trumvirate lined up, the value of Israel in the region might start to decline.

[Lady Bliss]

Abyss, on 08 May 2024 - 05:27 PM, said:

Lady Bliss, on 08 May 2024 - 02:59 PM, said:

Would you trust Israel if you were a Palestinian at this point?

No one is asking "Palestinians" to agree to anything. It's Hamas. Those guys who did the massacre that started this entire mess knowing full well what would happen next. Trust doesn't even enter into the discussion. It's only about comparative advantage and opportunity. Neither parties nor peoples have had any reason for trust in for decades. "Palestinians" didn't start this, didn't further it, didn't want it, and if anyone had asked Palestinians what they thought about a bunch of Hamas' plan for killing civilians in the first place, Palestinians probably would told them it was a bad idea. With clubs if not something more permanent.

For all of the innocent civilian though, they create more people that hate Israel.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

worry, on 08 May 2024 - 04:17 PM, said:

On a separate note, much respect to this young man (and everyone with him). Fantastic extemporaneous thinking:

The University of Pennsylvania called in the Philadelphia police to break up the protest encampment and the police for once heroically refused, saying there was no substantial evidence of the encampment presenting a significant security risk. (Though incidentally just today they broke up encampments of homeless people---primarily heavy drug users---in Philadelphia's Kensington neighborhood, which if you don't know is infamous for open use and sale of extremely debilitating drugs like tranq, heroin, and fentanyl.)

Philadelphia Police Department declines to disband encampment after Penn requests immediate help | The Daily Pennsylvanian (thedp.com)

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 08 May 2024 - 07:42 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

The police... In the States... Doing the right thing?

Definitely not on my bingo card for this year!

[Tiste Simeon]

Lady Bliss, on 08 May 2024 - 06:14 PM, said:

Abyss, on 08 May 2024 - 05:27 PM, said:

Lady Bliss, on 08 May 2024 - 02:59 PM, said:

Would you trust Israel if you were a Palestinian at this point?

No one is asking "Palestinians" to agree to anything. It's Hamas. Those guys who did the massacre that started this entire mess knowing full well what would happen next. Trust doesn't even enter into the discussion. It's only about comparative advantage and opportunity. Neither parties nor peoples have had any reason for trust in for decades. "Palestinians" didn't start this, didn't further it, didn't want it, and if anyone had asked Palestinians what they thought about a bunch of Hamas' plan for killing civilians in the first place, Palestinians probably would told them it was a bad idea. With clubs if not something more permanent.

For all of the innocent civilian though, they create more people that hate Israel.

I've been saying this for a while. The biggest Hamas recruiters are the Israeli state. The biggest proponents for international support for Israeli genocide and war crimes are Hamas.

If I was a tin foil hat type I would be suspicious that they're in cahoots.

[Abyss]

Tiste Simeon, on 09 May 2024 - 06:35 AM, said:

Lady Bliss, on 08 May 2024 - 06:14 PM, said:

Abyss, on 08 May 2024 - 05:27 PM, said:

Lady Bliss, on 08 May 2024 - 02:59 PM, said:

Would you trust Israel if you were a Palestinian at this point?

No one is asking "Palestinians" to agree to anything. It's Hamas. Those guys who did the massacre that started this entire mess knowing full well what would happen next. Trust doesn't even enter into the discussion. It's only about comparative advantage and opportunity. Neither parties nor peoples have had any reason for trust in for decades. "Palestinians" didn't start this, didn't further it, didn't want it, and if anyone had asked Palestinians what they thought about a bunch of Hamas' plan for killing civilians in the first place, Palestinians probably would told them it was a bad idea. With clubs if not something more permanent.

For all of the innocent civilian though, they create more people that hate Israel.

I've been saying this for a while. The biggest Hamas recruiters are the Israeli state. The biggest proponents for international support for Israeli genocide and war crimes are Hamas.

Accurate, but also accurate that there have been years (in between retribution campaigns) where Hamas has killed more Palestinians than Israel. The problem is that with proximity and zero alternatives, the Palestinian population find themselves aligned with or supporting or just trying not to get in the way of Hamas by default. The short lived 'Palestinian Authority' just turned out to be an easier target for Israel when problems arose and as a bonus they were also on the receiving end of much of the Palestinian v Palestinian violence.

Quote

If I was a tin foil hat type I would be suspicious that they're in cahoots.

Some version of that has happened at least once.