- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- bbc@rss.ponder.cat
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- bbc@rss.ponder.cat
- worldnews@lemmit.online
cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/post/590118
During a video address directed at the people of Lebanon, Netanyahu said: "You have an opportunity to save Lebanon before it falls into the abyss of a long war that will lead to destruction and suffering like we see in Gaza.
Lots of countries that bombed/killed their way to peace would disagree
Allowing them to rebuild their forces to get a mere 100 hostages back will just lead to more death in the future
Israel isn’t fighting a country. It’s, at least ostensibly, fighting terrorism and every civilian killed radicalizes someone. Israel will be less secure in the future because of how Netanyahu has conducted the war in Gaza, not to mention how he’s given settlers — who are terrorists themselves — free rein to steal land and attack West Bank Palestinians. (I say “ostensibly” because Gaza looks a lot more like a genocide than any sort of limited mission to crush Hamas and rescue hostages.)
Unfortunately, I don’t see Netanyahu’s strategy making Israel more secure in the long term.
The irony is that the hostages are safer with hamas. The Israelis are confirmed to have killed hundreds of their own citizens as part of rhe Hannibal doctrine on Oct 7th and have killed hostages in bombing raids.
They’re fighting Arab-islamic nationalists who won’t ever give up their fight over Palestine.
Morocco crushed the resistance in Western Sahara and took their territory. Now there’s peace.
Azerbaijan crushed the resistance in Nagorno-Kharabach and took their territory. Now there’s peace.
It’s not pretty, but sometimes it’s ‘better’ overall than letting an armed conflict drag on for eternity.
edit: Also:
So in addition to advocating for genocide in Gaza, you’re going to advocate for ethnic cleansing of Armenians and the people of Western Sahara?
I’m not advocating for any of those, but I understand you want to make it appear as such
I’m saying that the most peaceful solution is for Hezbollah (and Hamas) to accept their loss and stop trying to ethnically cleanse the jews out of Palestine. Their sporadic cross-border attacks can only be stopped effectively with a crushing military response and all the death and destruction that comes with it
Israel would have to occupy Tehran to stop the funding & arming of the terrorism that it is fighting. Do they roll their tanks through irak and syria to get there? And doesnt Iran have nukes by now?
The only option for peace is a two state solution. All the sides have to start talking and stop fighting. And that starts with Israel.
First, why would it have to start with Israel and not both sides? Don’t forget that Hamas tried to tank the Oslo accords with a series of suicide attacks in the mid-90’s.
And why wouldn’t a one state solution be an option for peace, given time? A lot of Arab nations were already moving towards normalisation with Israel. Which is why Hamas and Hezbollah need to stoke the fire every once in a while.
I’m reading interviews with Hamas militants who want their children to continue their fight to return to the village that their own grandparents were chased out of (within the 1948 jewish-allocated borders no less). As in: return to the village that these kids’ great-grandparents had lived in. And failing that, probably go on to move back to the villages of their great-great-greatparents?
At a certain point there’s limitations on the links between generations and whether they want to spend their lives trying to right the wrongs done to their ancestors that they didn’t even know themselves, or to go on with their lives in the present. There aren’t, for example, that many African-American slave descendants still trying to reclaim their ancestors’ tribes’ lands in Africa, or native Americans (north and south) trying to push all the immigrants since the late 1400s back into the sea. History and humanity move on.
So what is more important the life of one Israeli civilian or the life of one Palestinian civilian in your eyes?
Believe me if you were now trapped in Gaza, you would have completely different perspective on the matters.
Do you mean that if you lived in Gaza (say pre oct 7), you’d rather try to kill as many Israelis as possible and sacrifice yourself for that instead of choosing peace?
Also, as per the latest poll, finally a majority thinks that the choice for violence wasn’t the best idea
Removed by mod
Removed, advocating violence and self harm.
The last time “bombing to peace” worked was in WW2, when the US killed 200.000 Japanese civillians with two nukes. The threat was clear. Surrender or face total annihilation.
There is a term for that. It is called genocide. But in the case of Israel they would first need to genocide all of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Jordan. So some 50-60 Million people. Then all the other Muslims will feel threatened and fight back, like the West and UDSSR did against Nazis Germany. So in the second round, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Yemen and Oman will have to be genocided to achieve “peace”. That is some 200 million people. But then the rest of the world, except for Israels enablers in the US, Germany, UK and other few allies will feel threatened. So then the genocide needs to kill some 7 billion people.
That is the logic of the escalator “seeking peace” through killing everyone opposing him. When the US fought Japan, it was also liberating the countries around it. When Israel is fighting everyone around it, it is always clear that it will step it up to attack the next country and the next after that.
The nuclear bombing of Japan didn’t need to happen. They were already willing to surrender even before that.
If you don’t know of any conflict being ended with violence after WW2, you might want to sign up to some history podcast or something
You can’t bomb ideas.