Couldnt help laugh at how close your characterization appears to be. At some points I thought I was arguing with a 16 year old.
Anti-Zionist Jew running for congress gives the lowdown on AIPACs control of the US. "We're being ruled by the Zionist state". And running against Debbi Wasserman Shultz (AIPAC backed candidate), hoping to capitalize on the changing mood in the country, hopes to convert it into the "the biggest FU to AIPAC" since its existence. More power to her!
I think the bigger issue is that he ruffled your feathers by damaging your pretentiousness, the lofty superiority you try to hide your self contempt behind. 'Superior people like you' believe it a sign of weakness to pay any attention to us lesser beings, a thing you yourself can't begin to do, and when you can find one with some credibility to target for actually paying such attention you attack them as fools. This, it strikes me, is your shtick, the stylistic model of your particular, mental illness, a Sith with a dark sword that strikes from the back. Over and over you attacked him for paying attention to the unworthy to the point he finally told you to fuck off and you have been whimpering like an emotionally damaged child ever sense. Such great insight into the world around you and so little into yourself.
And it's me who constantly pushes him into the topic of housing. I would suggest you stick your head up your ass and give my regards to Jordan Peterson but, well, I'm too nice to say something like that.
The world made you feel worthless as a child but you will never heal by getting even with random third parties. The only enemy you have is yourself. Take your paring knives and dissect that.
I notice you could not and have not admitted any validity to the point of view that it was politically impossible for Arafat to accede to Israel's bottom line. Each side is engaged, in my opinion, with the strategy of breaking the other side's will. We have Star Trek with two sides engaged in turn based nuking the other side. Mutually insured insanity. Where does it lead? In my opinion, to an Israel made of green glass.Couldnt help laugh at how close your characterization appears to be. At some points I thought I was arguing with a 16 year old.
Seems you havent been paying attention. Of course it was "politically impossible for Arafat to accede to Israel's bottom line"! Not only politically impossible but practically unworkable! Anyone from anywhere under the same conditions would have rejected this!
Please read again and tell me that you understand this or if I'm just wasting my time:
Page 172 - Israel: We Are At War
Page 172 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
forums.anandtech.com
MrSquished
Lifer
- Jan 14, 2013
- 21,422
- 19,848
- 136
Pohemi
Diamond Member
- Oct 2, 2004
- 8,967
- 11,620
- 146
As protests on US campuses have increased and anti-protest rhetoric ramped-up, I hate to ask but also can't stop wondering...
Will we end up seeing Kent State 2.0? The police responses seem to be increasing in severity, and officials are mentioning bringing in National Guard...
There's a lot of fear being pushed in regards to non-violent protests.
Will we end up seeing Kent State 2.0? The police responses seem to be increasing in severity, and officials are mentioning bringing in National Guard...
There's a lot of fear being pushed in regards to non-violent protests.
MrSquished
Lifer
- Jan 14, 2013
- 21,422
- 19,848
- 136
From the newspapers - Hamas had basically agreed to release 50 hostages if Israel paused the bombardment of Gaza, but Israel launched its ground war a couple days later and killed those talks. Because anybody who is not ignorant, or a Zionist pig, knows that Israel could care less about hostages or anything else but eradicating the Palestinians and their land because they have become a monstrous apartheid state nation just aching to kill and displace as many Palestinians as possible.
"Days before Israel launched its ground invasion of Gaza, it was closing in on a deal for Hamas to release up to 50 hostages in exchange for pausing the bombardment unleashed in response to the militants’ Oct. 7 attacks in Israel, according to Arab and Western officials with knowledge of the talks.
But once Israel’s ground assault on Gaza got underway on Oct. 27, the negotiations came to an abrupt halt, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations. The talks resumed days later and are still underway."
-from the NYT
also Hamas has offered to release all hostages on the condition that the war is ended in phases, and Israel withdraws from the strip. I mean of course Israel won't agree because they want the Palestinians permanently gone, which has always been their goal, which is why we are where we are now.
www.timesofisrael.com
"Days before Israel launched its ground invasion of Gaza, it was closing in on a deal for Hamas to release up to 50 hostages in exchange for pausing the bombardment unleashed in response to the militants’ Oct. 7 attacks in Israel, according to Arab and Western officials with knowledge of the talks.
But once Israel’s ground assault on Gaza got underway on Oct. 27, the negotiations came to an abrupt halt, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations. The talks resumed days later and are still underway."
-from the NYT
also Hamas has offered to release all hostages on the condition that the war is ended in phases, and Israel withdraws from the strip. I mean of course Israel won't agree because they want the Palestinians permanently gone, which has always been their goal, which is why we are where we are now.
Hamas said to demand end of war at start of deal, would only free hostages in 2nd phase
New Hamas proposal, reportedly given to mediators, provides for all hostages to go free -- but only after Israel permanently ends war, displaced Gazans return unimpeded to north
www.timesofisrael.com
KMFJD
Lifer
- Aug 11, 2005
- 29,335
- 42,728
- 136
funny that eh, rules based order for some but not for others, why's that?
Last edited:
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 34,626
- 15,821
- 136
So it’s safe to say bothsides were wrong on this issueRobert Malley, a US negotiator on the US team that oversaw the Camp David negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinans in Camp David in 2000, wrote his impressions of what occurred in the talks in NYT:
Fictions About the Failure At Camp David
Opinion | Fictions About the Failure At Camp David (Published 2001)
Op-Ed article by Robert Malley, former Mideast aide to Pres Clinton, debunks 'myths' he says have arisen in year since Camp David meeting; says Yasir Arafat was at low point of relations with Prime Min Ehud Barak and had not wanted to come, that Israel proposals were indeed far-reaching but not...www.nytimes.com
If anyone encounters a paywall for this article, the full text here:
Fictions About the Failure At Camp David
By Robert Malley
A year ago this week, President Bill Clinton, Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel and the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat gathered at Camp David for what, in retrospect, many consider a turning point in Israeli-Palestinian relations. From right to left, hawks to doves, comes unusual harmony of opinion both here and in Israel: Camp David is said to have been a test that Mr. Barak passed and Mr. Arafat failed. Offered close to 99 percent of their dreams, the thinking goes, the Palestinians said no and chose to hold out for more. Worse, they did not present any concession of their own, adopting a no-compromise attitude that unmasked their unwillingness to live peacefully with a Jewish state by their side.
I was at Camp David, a member of the small American peace team, and I, too, was frustrated almost to the point of despair by the Palestinians' passivity and inability to seize the moment. But there is no purpose -- and considerable harm -- in adding to their real mistakes a list of fictional ones. Here are the most dangerous myths about the Camp David summit.
Myth 1: Camp David was an ideal test of Mr. Arafat's intentions.
Mr. Arafat told us on numerous occasions that he had not wanted to go to Camp David. He thought that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators had not sufficiently narrowed the gaps separating their positions before the summit, and once there, he made clear in his comments that he felt both isolated from the Arab world and alienated by the close Israeli-American partnership. Moreover, the summit occurred at a low point in Mr. Arafat's relationship with Mr. Barak -- the man with whom he was supposed to strike a historic deal. A number of Israeli commitments, including a long-postponed Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank and the transfer to Palestinian control of villages abutting Jerusalem, remained unfulfilled, and Mr. Arafat believed that Mr. Barak was simply trying to skirt his obligations. It also took a genuine leap of faith -- for Mr. Barak as for the United States -- to imagine that the 100-year conflict between Jews and Palestinians living in this region, with roots going back thousands of years more and tens of thousands of victims along the way, could be resolved in a fortnight without any of the core issues -- territory, refugees, or the fate of Jerusalem -- having previously been discussed by the leaders.
Myth 2: Israel's offer met most if not all of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations.
Yes, what was put on the table was more far-reaching than anything any Israeli leader had discussed in the past -- whether with the Palestinians or with Washington. But it was not the dream offer it has been made out to be, at least not from a Palestinian perspective.
To accommodate the settlers, Israel was to annex 9 percent of the West Bank; in exchange, the new Palestinian state would be granted sovereignty over parts of Israel proper, equivalent to one-ninth of the annexed land. A Palestinian state covering 91 percent of the West Bank and Gaza was more than most Americans or Israelis had thought possible, but how would Mr. Arafat explain the unfavorable 9-to-1 ratio in land swaps to his people?
In Jerusalem, Palestine would have been given sovereignty over many Arab neighborhoods of the eastern half and over the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City. While it would enjoy custody over the Haram al Sharif, the location of the third-holiest Muslim shrine, Israel would exercise overall sovereignty over this area, known to Jews as the Temple Mount. This, too, was far more than had been thinkable only a few weeks earlier, and a very difficult proposition for the Israeli people to accept. But how could Mr. Arafat have justified to his people that Israel would retain sovereignty over some Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, let alone over the Haram al Sharif? As for the future of refugees -- for many Palestinians, the heart of the matter -- the ideas put forward at Camp David spoke vaguely of a ''satisfactory solution,'' leading Mr. Arafat to fear that he would be asked to swallow an unacceptable last-minute proposal.
Myth 3: The Palestinians made no concession of their own.
Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem -- neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel -- not Anwar el-Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria -- ever came close to even considering such compromises.
If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality.
The facts do not indicate, however, any lack of foresight or vision on the part of Ehud Barak. He had uncommon political courage as well. But the measure of Israel's concessions ought not be how far it has moved from its own starting point; it must be how far it has moved toward a fair solution.
The Palestinians did not meet their historic responsibilities at the summit either. I suspect they will long regret their failure to respond to President Clinton -- at Camp David and later on -- with more forthcoming and comprehensive ideas of their own.
Finally, Camp David was not rushed. It was many things -- inadequately prepared for, perhaps; too informal, possibly; lacking proper fall-back options, without a doubt -- but premature it was not. By the spring of 2000, every serious Israeli, Palestinian and American analyst was predicting an outbreak of Palestinian violence absent a major breakthrough in the peace process. The Oslo process had run its natural course; if anything, tackling the sensitive final status issues came too late, not too soon.
The gloss that is put on the past matters. The way the two sides choose to view yesterday largely will determine how they choose to behave tomorrow. And, if unchallenged, their respective interpretations will gradually harden into divergent versions of reality and unassailable truths -- that Yasir Arafat is incapable of reaching a final agreement, for example, or that Israel is intent on perpetuating an oppressive regime. As the two sides continue to debate what went wrong at Camp David, it is important that they get the lessons right.
Page 80 - Discussion - 2024 USA Election Thread: Biden and Dems might have problems in 2024 swing states - The Gaza Issue
Page 80 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
forums.anandtech.com
That’s it I am truly done with this subject. My troll level post is simply saying “I am tired of this endless conflict and I am not spending time & effort into a solution if neither of the parties involved want peace or are willing to honor agreements that have been made.”
Of course I feel sorrow for the people of Palestine
Of course I feel Israel has a right to exist
What was Israel supposed to do, after Hamas killed ~1000 civilians? Just cut a deal and move on? I don't think any country would allow that kind of thing.
What you're describing, or implying, is some simple deal and what your link says are two very different things. It's also not true in the most basic sense. They have more demands than just Israel leaving, and Israel mostly agreeing to most of their demands without knowing what it'll get in return.also Hamas has offered to release all hostages on the condition that the war is ended in phases, and Israel withdraws from the strip. I mean of course Israel won't agree because they want the Palestinians permanently gone, which has always been their goal, which is why we are where we are now.
Hamas said to demand end of war at start of deal, would only free hostages in 2nd phase
New Hamas proposal, reportedly given to mediators, provides for all hostages to go free -- but only after Israel permanently ends war, displaced Gazans return unimpeded to north
Hamas is demanding that Israel basically leave the Gaza Strip FIRST in a 42 day ceasefire, without getting anything in return, and AFTER those 42 days Hamas will tell Israel how many hostages they still have, will require 50/30 to one prisoner exchange for women soldier/civilians. These hostages will be released over an additional 42 day period, and then after those 42 days (so we're now at 84 says) they'll be willing to exchange Israeli male civilians and soldiers for an undisclosed amount of prisoners for each, over an additional 42 more days (126 days in total).
Your point seemed to me to be that Israel set its bottom line to make sure Arafat could not meet them rather than setting its bottom line at where the minimum it could deliver at home. These are different things. It seemed to me that fiskimospy was saying that both sides were unable to deliver not that one side made it impossible for the other to deliver which is what I thought you were saying. I don't blame one side or the other. I say that Israel, owing to the fact of it's greater military power and control over Palestinian lives bears the greater burden of finding an avenue to peace not withstanding the fact of from river to sea or however that bullshit chant is formulated. Islam was modified mid development, it seems to me, to deal with religious Jewish fanaticism. It it requires violence to achieve justice then violence it will be. Christian compassion in the face of evil has limits in Islam.Seems you havent been paying attention. Of course it was "politically impossible for Arafat to accede to Israel's bottom line"! Not only politically impossible but practically unworkable! Anyone from anywhere under the same conditions would have rejected this!
Please read again and tell me that you understand this or if I'm just wasting my time:
Page 172 - Israel: We Are At War
Page 172 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Personally, I believe that fisk has it right that both sides were ideologically locked into positions that could not admit to proper compromise. I have believed for decades that only on the Israeli side could the wisdom exist to change that dynamic but Israel went to the right and religious instead at the urging of politicians whose way to power was to generate fear.
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 17,776
- 9,761
- 136
I'm wondering how many times this line of argument has been trotted out in this thread, responded to, then the person posing the argument buggers off without another word.
What an organisation such as Israel is "supposed to do" depends almost entirely on what it wants to achieve. It responded by committing genocide. That tells you what it wants to achieve.
Back in October 2023:
And now:
Tents appear in Gaza as Israel prepares Rafah offensive
Two newly-built encampments near the southern city are shown on satellite pictures.
www.bbc.co.uk
When people tell you who they are, believe them.
Hamas's Oct 7th attack was not a reasonable act, however nor was it an act that occurred in a vacuum. When one state has been steadily eradicating its neighbour as Israel has been doing for many decades, they would have to be complete lunatics not to expect such a response.
Not kill tens of thousands of civilians and starve 1M more in response? Israel has/had other options that yes would involve more risk to its own troops than dropping 2000lb JDAMs on apartment buildings.
Please try to find a post here that says Israel didn't have a right to respond to the October 7th attacks. Link it up.
Well, I definitely won't try to have a conversation with someone who thinks that killing 1000 civilians in cold blood is kind of ok. One can't say that Gaza has been steadily eradicated when its population is about double what it was 20 years ago.I'm wondering how many times this line of argument has been trotted out in this thread, responded to, then the person posing the argument buggers off without another word.
What an organisation such as Israel is "supposed to do" depends almost entirely on what it wants to achieve. It responded by committing genocide. That tells you what it wants to achieve.
Back in October 2023:
And now:
Tents appear in Gaza as Israel prepares Rafah offensive
Two newly-built encampments near the southern city are shown on satellite pictures.www.bbc.co.uk
When people tell you who they are, believe them.
Hamas's Oct 7th attack was not a reasonable act, however nor was it an act that occurred in a vacuum. When one state has been steadily eradicating its neighbour as Israel has been doing for many decades, they would have to be complete lunatics not to expect such a response.
How about you read what I responded to. None of what he wrote is close to what you responded with. His idea is that the whole idea of a ground assault is a crime - not that the way that Israel executed it is too aggressive. Those are two very different things.
I don't see how, after more than 1000 civilians murdered in cold blood, Israel had any other option but to go in and destroy Hamas troops.
You're saying that their tactics were extremely aggressive and that Israel should have handled the ground assault in a different manner - which is legitimate critique.
Exactly - a military operation was the only choice here. I think the conduct of it has been far in excess of what was justified and there’s been way too little consideration of civilian casualties, but a military operation was always going to happen and rightly so.
After the October 7th attacks Hamas rejoiced in their success and publicly stated they couldn’t wait to do it again. No country on earth would stand for that.
MrSquished
Lifer
- Jan 14, 2013
- 21,422
- 19,848
- 136
I mean they are negotiating with genocidal ethnic cleansing maniacs who have specifically bombed all of Gaza into the stone age, and the buildings of relevance they didn't bomb, they have gone demolition on them. Every hospital has been invaded. They have for the most part blockaded any real aid from getting in.
I wouldn't trust a thing Israel says. They are monsters.
Pohemi
Diamond Member
- Oct 2, 2004
- 8,967
- 11,620
- 146
They vanish, or just ignore the answers to their asked questions.
If you ask a question (even a generalized, open question like yours), you could at least acknowledge the answers and stop pretending you didn't hear the opposite of what you continue trying to claim.
Still rationalizing civilian massacre as a necessary response to Oct. 7th, and which supposedly targets Hamas fighters. I mean...are you a PR rep for the IDF?
Last edited:
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 46,210
- 33,426
- 136
A military response to Oct 7 was most certainly inevitable. The kind of response that would be conducted wasn't and ultimately represents either the loss of control of various IDF elements, or a political decision to conduct a massively punitive and largely indiscriminate campaign, or perhaps aspects of both. Whatever moral high ground the Israelis enjoyed originally has long since turned into a deepening pit of their own creation.
Pohemi
Diamond Member
- Oct 2, 2004
- 8,967
- 11,620
- 146
It's like I'm writing one thing and you're reading something else entirely. Where did I say anything about the Israeli attack or methods at all? Please, point to one place in my post. I already wrote that my response was to a post that claimed that Israel should have just cut a deal without doing a ground invasion at all which is absurd.
Pohemi
Diamond Member
- Oct 2, 2004
- 8,967
- 11,620
- 146
Projection. You keep ignoring what others say while putting words in their mouths. Prime example:
Who said it's okay? You've been asked this already, but please by all means...link these statements by others. I can see you're (sort of) trying to be subtle about it, but it's still obvious. Especially when you keep accusing others of exactly WTH you're doing/saying.
Bad faith.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter