VIM
21d ago
Well no, the first paragraph is providing essential context, namely that by your own standard the Jewish terrorists prior to 1947 demonstrated the exact same genocidal tendencies while the Palestinians only exhibited such tendencies reactively after a millennia of Palestinians living in peace with their Jewish neighbors.
The second asks a rhetorical question: would the Palestinians be genocidal if they weren't being dominated? So far you've yet to provide any such evidence, just bald faced assertions that an SS Sturmbannführer could as easily make about how genocidal Jews would be if the tables turned and they were allowed to dominate Germany.
It does if your objective is, as many allege, to simply depopulate an area through violence. The Rwandan genocide took a little over 3 months, during which mobs of civilians armed with blades and a few small arms killed a million people. It defies credulity that the IDF, armed with modern weapons, somehow is so incompetent at genocide as to only kill less than 10% as many over a period of time six times longer, especially when all the would-be victims are penned up in a tiny area like Gaza.
-
Israel's modern weaponry is dependent on a complex international supply chain that could be interrupted at any moment by patrons dropping their support whereas Germany was, by design, autarchic and self sufficient.
-
The IDF has nearly no tolerance for casualties, unlike the Hutus or Waffen SS. You can drop bombs or snipe people from a distance but to commit Rwanda-tier genocide you have to close in and closing in would expose Israeli fighters to a level of risk they aren't willing to take.
No, if the Israelis were actually the Nazis that so many here portray them as being, they could have just treated Gaza like the Warsaw ghetto and it would have been over inside a month.
Ironically, Nazis used this exact argument:
We executed orders very well, so I assure you if there had been an order to kill all Jews, there would be none left in Europe. Instead, there are millions of survivors. We would not have used an insecticide to do it either; Zyklon B was a fumigant that all nations used to kill lice, which cause typhus, which killed millions after the first war. The Americans called it DDT, so the Jews expect us to believe DDT was used to gas them. The Allies destroyed rail lines, bridges, roads, and airports so that no supplies could get to German cities or the camps. The prisoners got sick, withered away, and died, many times right when the Allies entered the camps. Many died even while under allied care, it took weeks to stop the outbreaks, and thousands of prisoners died. The Allies caused these deaths, although not intentionally. It was just easy to blame a policy of extermination instead of telling the truth.
General Ernst Remer 1987.
EDIT: Also they didn't "deal with the Warsaw Ghetto" by bombing it to rubble and then shooting everyone (except at the very end when people starting fighting back, and ironically those people had the best odds of survival) they transported people to concentration camps. If killing millions of people is as simple as you think then why did Hitler bother with the logistical hassle instead of just killing them on the spot like Genghis Khan?
VIM
22d ago
Because they aren't actually being all that brutal. Depopulating and securing an area is quick and easy if you're willing to adopt the ROE of Ghengis Khan or the Greco/Turkish war.
The Israelis shot their own hostages while they were shouting in Hebrew and waving white flags, they aren't operating according to strict ROE. Just being brutal doesn't always translate to being more militarily effective: the perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide were so focused on the genocide that they actually wound up losing to the much smaller Tutsi militias that prioritized actual military objectives over pointless slaughter.
VIM
22d ago
Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza because armed resistance made the cost of maintaining settlements too high, same with Lebanon. If the Gazans were entirely pacifistic they would have had no reason to leave in the first place.
VIM
22d ago
Even the black South Africans aren't, as a whole, as genocidal as Palestinian Arabs.
Based on what, exactly? Jews lived alongside Palestinian Arabs for the past thousand years and the number of major anti-semitic incidents prior to the arrival of the Zionists can be measured on one hand. It's only after people arrived who hid explosives inside Synagogues and engaged in "assassination, terror attacks and even castration that the Palestinians became bloodthirsty.
Anyone forced to live under the domination of such people would eventually become pretty genocidal. Would they maintain this attitude in the event said domination ceased, forever? I've yet to see any evidence that they'd be any worse than Zulus or Xhosas.
VIM
22d ago
Besides what you've already mentioned, Kirk was assassinated publicly in the middle of a livestreamed debate. I have a hard time thinking of any comparable examples besides the JFK assassination and even that's a stretch.
VIM
22d ago
If it gets to the point where the United States is willing to make Israel a pariah state, the Israeli Jews won't have any place to go.
The Boers didn't have any place to go either but they gave up instead of choosing to become North Korea despite facing infinitely worse demographic prospects.
Of course, none of this is going to happen. All of this fantasizing about how the entire international community (including the US) is going to look at Israeli atrocities and the angelic behavior of Hamas and cut Israel off once and for all is just mental masturbation.
Thinking it's going to happen because the "international community" miraculously decides to start caring about morality would be mental masturbation, but it's actually going to happen because Israel is a gigantic liability whose subsidy is indefensible from an America First realpolitik perspective.
The total American expenditure on behalf of Israel over the past two years is measured somewhere between tens and hundreds of billions of dollars, including nearly a quarter of the THAAD interceptor supply in just under two weeks. This enormous investment towards a country that appears to operate parasitically vis-a-vis the US and which has no issue taking actions that directly harm American interests seems unlikely to survive the next election cycle.
VIM
22d ago
Israel is lying about [x]. Even though a number of countries, notably Iran and the U.S., would know the truth and Israel would risk leaks.
Here's the core of the issue: you claim bombs were used, yet none of the strikes documented by satellite imagery are consistent with bombs, let alone the repeated bomb strikes one would expect if the IAF actually had total control of the skies. That being the case, it doesn't matter what Iran does or doesn't choose to dispute. If Hamas makes some outlandish claim and Israel doesn't directly dispute it are we supposed to automatically assume it to be true?
Iran (and Hezbollah) were not defeated; they chose not to deliver further damage to Israel. The country they have sworn to destroy.
You're saying that Israel was not defeated, they just chose not to deliver further damage to Iran despite failing to have destroyed their nuclear program or their ballistic missile capabilities after securing total control of their airspace.
Again, the decisive factor here is the US. Iran doesn't want an existential fight against the global hegemon and Israel can't maintain an extended exchange if the US doesn't directly intervene. That's really the only explanation that covers why neither side has resumed fighting yet.
What was their goal this time? Was it the same as 2006? (No.)
It was to force Hezbollah north of the Litani and to allow Israelis in the northern communities to return. The IAF is still bombing territory south of the Litani and somewhere between 20% and 50% of the former inhabitants of said communities have left permanently so that's a failure on two counts.
Well at least you're willing to acknowledge one part of the Israeli government did a good job.
Israel has always been excellent at assassinations, the trouble is that assassinations don't win wars.
For "exercises"? AYFKMRN? We know who the dead generals are.
Yes, the Iranians were conducting missile exercises when Israel struck.
No reason? He has a whole wing of advisors who wanted the U.S. to take no part. As far as Trump is concerned, the nuclear program was bombed, so mission accomplished.
Yes, that explains why Trump would step out, but why would Israel? In your world they had Iran totally at their mercy yet they still had nuclear material and ballistic missile capabilities. Why would they step back and allow the Iranians to restock, resupply and rebuild their defenses moments after securing total control of their skies? They bomb Syria regularly (who hasn't fired a shot back in return), they even bombed Qatar, why did they stop bombing Iran?
Bibi will only test Trump so much.
He just bombed Qatar! How in the world would bombing supposedly defenseless and hostile Iran cause Trump to do anything that bombing one of his biggest financial backers wouldn't?!
The Iranians have formed a war council because they expect the war to recommence. Israel is, one presumes, presently plotting for such an eventuality. As they did that last time.
Netanyahu would love to try again if he thought Trump could be dragged into doing the dirty work but there's little indication that Iran fears Israel on its own.
Again, no truce was "cut." Nothing was negotiated. It's a de facto ceasefire.
Do you deny that Iran's economy was massively impacted during the conflict because of the reliance on the oil industry, or is that also propaganda?
Massively impacted, sure. More massively impacted than the country that has been fighting multiple wars nonstop for two years using reservists? Probably not.
Had the conflict continued roughly as it had, who was going to run out of money first?
Israel has an unlimited line of credit with Uncle Sam so of course they're never running out of greenbacks but in an extended war of attrition the real question is who would run out of valuable infrastructure.
The entire country of Israel has just a few dozen major sites containing the critical national infrastructure: power plants, water desalinization, refineries, etc. The Iranians hitting the Bazan refinery alone stressed their entire supply chain; given a few months of daily strikes Israel would be unlivable, though the US would come to the rescue before then.
VIM
22d ago
And if North Korea can be viable as a state, so can Israel.
I'd imagine even most Israelis who don't give a damn about Palestinians would start having second thoughts if they were promised North Korean living standards. Is Israel going to force Jews to stay in the country at the threat of torturing their families to death?
Most of Israeli military production concerns the top of the production chain, operating under the assumption that they can import the vast majority of their other needs; Israel doesn't even produce their own bombs. Trying to compare Israeli self sufficiency with that of Nazi Germany is a good joke, though; one Israeli general estimated that they would be entirely out of supplies in under a month if they stopped getting foreign support.
You say, after claiming all Israel needs to do to win in Gaza is to "go full Genghis Khan".
Yes, they aren't "zerglings" but they were willing to take serious casualties to achieve their goals, something the IDF clearly isn't willing to do. What's actually "not serious analysis" is pretending that Israeli morality is a greater factor in their way of warfare than Israeli cowardice and Israeli incompetence on the ground.
Yes, the Nazis used Einsatzgruppen, but the Nazis discovered pretty quickly that death squads don't kill people fast enough and also leave soldiers as psychological wrecks. Hence the invention of death camps and the Final Solution. They wouldn't impose the enormous logistical strain of the camp system on themselves if the job could be done just as easily by regular soldiers shooting people on the spot.
As to how much "killing-on-the-spot" has been committed by the IDF, I have no idea how you've made an estimate because the IDF has demonstrated they're perfectly happy to storm a house and kill unarmed elderly people for sport, to triple tap a WCK convoy, to slaughter rescue workers and then bury the evidence with bulldozers. These crimes are only ever acknowledged when they're caught on camera by bystanders/victims and even those incidents have yet to see a single perpetrator sentenced to prison time. We'll only know the true extent of the crimes years after the fighting stops, just like how the death toll of the Holocaust only became apparent years later: estimates in the immediate aftermath of the war actually put the Jewish population higher in 1948 than 1938.
Also, of course the Japanese probably killed more people that way but the Japanese were courageous to a nearly suicidal degree. You'll never in a million years see Israeli soldiers charging tanks with bombs on sticks. Not a great comparison.
More options
Context Copy link