I was just listening to a U of Mn student on the local news calling Biden “genocide joe” and saying this isn’t a choice of lesser of two evils but evil evil. She also said that more people should vote uncommitted. If I could speak to her directly while she might not see any difference between Trump’s and Biden in Israel there is a world of difference between them on many other issues she probably cares about. This is why I’ll say again that too many are looking at this issue simplistically and looking more for expressing their own moral superiority. It’s been reduced down to either standing up for an oppressed people against colonizers or standing up for a westernized modern people versus backward religious barbarism. There is evidence to both views and evidence that they are off base. Another though political reality is that while many are very passionate about the plight of the Gazans there are as many and probably more Americans that see Israel as an ally that was attacked and we should support. If Biden actually did stop sending aid to Israel he likely loses the election by far more than the possibility that supporting Israel would will cost him the election. Also it’s very likely that we as Americans really have little say in what happens there. Even if support for Israel was stopped Israel has enough military superiority they could wipe out Gaza multiple times without US aid. Ultimately the only people to be able to get a ceasefire are the Israelis themselves.
When you say there is valid arguments of barbarism vs western values what do you mean? Can I ask you a question. When I have visited Bangladesh, why when I am in wealthy parts of Dhaka in high rise condos I see women dress in western style clothing with no head coverings often, men skipping prayer and barely doing any Islamic things in their day to day lives but when I go to poor rural parts of Bangaldesh I never see a woman without a head covering? What does that say about religious fundamentalism?
I’m not really sure what example has to do with what I posted. That said do you deny that Hamas is a religious fundamentalist organization that has committed barbarous acts?
Absolutely. Can you answer me why in an Islamic country I have visited in Bangladesh, the urban wealthy high rise condos districts in Dhaka have Bengali women and men living more secular lives compared to their poor rural counterparts?
There cannot be a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders where both countries have contiguous states. It is geographically impossible. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip do not touch each other. They didn't touch each other in 1967. If you connected them, then Israel would be divided and no longer contiguous. There was also never a Palestinian state that existed between 1948 and 1967. The former borders of Israel along the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were with Jordan and Egypt respectively, so a return to the 1967 borders would involve the Egyptians taking control of the Gaza Strip, Jordan taking control of the West Bank, and Syria taking control of the Golan Heights, none of which is actually going to happen and none of which any of the involved countries actually want to happen.
I really don't want to argue the semantics with you if you want to start at the point of debating whether Palestine existed technically or non-technically between 1947 and 1968. It would require us to rehash a discussion that has been exchanged for half a century and whose results are reflected in global opinion already. We'd be wasting our time. I know of a way that two contiguous states can be created and it was discussed at Camp David. I think if you showed the map to a kid and told them - as a game with a prize - they have to draw two contiguous states while changing the map as little as possible, you would get roughly the same result. It would definitely be ugly and trigger everyone's OCD tendencies. I understand and appreciate your perspective, thanks.
Thank you for your highly insightful contribution. Now **** off. IDF needs to finish the job and eradicate Hamas.
It isn't a semantic argument, there has never been a Palestinian state. It didn't exist technically, non-technically, or any other way before 1967. The closest it came was Egypt creating a puppet government in Gaza that was ostensibly an independent Palestinian state, though they quickly rescinded that decision and decided it would just be governed by Egypt after all. The closest it came after 1967 was when Israel pulled out of Gaza and turned it over to Hamas. There are infinite ways that two contiguous states could be created in any land mass. You draw a line from one point on an edge and connect it to any point on an edge (even the same starting point), or you just draw any enclosed shape anywhere in the middle. What you can't do is have two contiguous states that use the borders predating the Six Day War, because they had one contiguous state (Israel), and parts of two foreign states that people want to now say were Palestine, which were not contiguous. The way to make that into two contiguous states with the least land being ceded by Israel would be to have a narrow strip either south along the border with Egypt to the Gulf of Aqaba and then back up the Eastern border to the West Bank, or the same but going North along the Med to Lebanon, across the Lebanese and Syrian borders, and then back south to the West Bank. One would cut Israel off from the Mediterranean and the other from the Red Sea. Which of those possibilities do you imagine they would sign up for? At the 2000 Camp David Summit, they actually came up with both Israel and Palestine being discontinuous, with Israel allowing a highway/rail line connecting the West Bank and Gaza and Palestine allowing an access road connecting an enclave entirely surrounded by Palestinian territory to Israel. The Palestinians were offered what amounted to roughly 92% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, some land in the Negev, the access highway/train line, but no right of return. The Palestinians said no compromise on land in the West Bank and they must have right of return and the talks died. Israel is never giving "right of return" or giving huge parts of Jerusalem to the Palestinians. The Palestinians may someday accept that they can have a state, but it will not include a huge chunk of Jerusalem and will not include right of return. It hasn't happened in the decades it has been under discussion and the Palestinians have not been in a worse bargaining position since Israel withdrew from the Sinai.
lol dude are you still going around advocating killing women at the expense of PCOS and the potential for ovulation
What are you talking about? I have never advocated killing women. I have advocated banning abortion. Killing is what those who perform abortion are doing. It also has nothing to do with the topic at hand, always a good indication that you have nothing of worth to say.
Again I don’t get your example. Are you trying to say that not all Muslims aren’t backwards religious fundamentalist? Yes of course that doesn’t mean that some are backward religious fundamentalists. What I think you are is your focussing on one line of my posts and are doing exactly what I was warning about that this issue has become very simplified depending on where your sympathy lies. My line about “ barbaric religious fundamentalists” was an example of simplification the same as the line about “standing with oppressed people against colonizers” I guess I shouldn’t be surprised as a right wing poster focused on the latter line from another post I made saying the same thing.
Contiguous helps a state but isn’t necessary. If that was the case then island nations like the Seychelles shouldn’t exist. Also it’s an odd argument to claim that there can’t be a Palestinian state because one didn’t exist before. Before 1948 Israel didn’t exist.
I'm asking why the poor rural communities are more fundamentalist and why the well of high condo areas of Dhaka have people who are more secular.
He is a hopeless individual 100% regarding this issue. Literally wants to remain ignorant. I referenced an 8-10 hour historical podcast so he could learn the history. The person that made it had been interviewed on right leaning podcasts in the past with no issue. Simply because it is an extremely informative dense and well sourced it is worth listening too. he comes back after I post that (I presume by searching online the podcasts name and anti-semetic) finds a comment I believe in Reddit saying it is and then dismisses the entire several episode & several hour podcast. I then knew not to take a single thing he says on the matter serious. I do not know how to even put into words how repugnant I find that kind of mentality. Going around acting high and mighty on a subject as this one but really simply does not want to learn past ****ing tweets.
You are an idiot if you think I am going to listen to a 10 hour anti-semitic podcast because you suggested it.
