50 years to the day

[gravitylover]

Lebanon too. It's amazing the potential that the region has and how poorly the residents have handled it. I just don't understand why so many people choose to live in squalor when there's so much potential to live well. For as long as "civilized society" has had organized religion people have been fighting over it. Fukn move on.

[MultiVerse]

Lebanon was once one of the most prosperous and beautiful countries in the Middle East before it was destroyed by radical militants. Before the Lebanese Civil War, Lebanon was a thriving place for business and tourism.

[Cono Este]

Lebanon was once one of the most prosperous and beautiful countries in the Middle East before it was destroyed by radical militants. Before the Lebanese Civil War, Lebanon was a thriving place for business and tourism.

It was, the wealthy Saudi tc all had homes there, and it was coming back, people that moved to the US were returning there in retirement.

But when 1/3 of your country has been hijacked by radical, Iranian militants, not a good retirement plan.

Remember that explosion in the port? Fertilizer?.. lol.

[jono]

the Palestinian cause which is explicitly in their own words: killing Jews.

Is this exactly what you meant to say? One of these words uses the broadest definition of a group of people and the statement that follows it then ascribes the most extreme views within it to the whole group.

That seems common but not universal in this thread so I'd like to know where you stand on it.

[MultiVerse]

Yes. The material and media marvels of the modern age have camouflaged evil. People in the West tend to historicize evil. Westerners can't imagine people in other parts of the world with the sinister designs of Hamas representing Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Instead people argue Hamas exists as a separate entity even though Hamas is the embodiment of the Palestinian cause in Gaza and, but for the IDF, the West Bank too.

That doesn't mean there aren't Palestinians who hold different views per your point, it means the Palestinian cause as understood by Palestinians in the region is the destruction of Jewish-Israel through the use of murderous violence. Hamas along with a host of other Palestinian groups also call for killing Jews and Israelis around the world as well. The Palestinian cause, in their own words, as it exists today is to annihilate Israel and murder Jews.

[JimmyCarter]

Instead people argue Hamas exists as a separate entity even though Hamas is the embodiment of the Palestinian cause in Gaza and, but for the IDF, the West Bank too.

Bibi propped up Hamas in Gaza to prevent Palestinian solidarity by pushing PA out, so technically you’ve got that backwards

[jono]

Thanks for that. I didn't really make it past the first word.

[summit]

^jono I've come to expect a more open mind from you than that.

Bibi propped up Hamas in Gaza to prevent Palestinian solidarity by pushing PA out, so technically you’ve got that backwards

Netanyahu didn't become PM until 3 years after Hamas took over, purged PA (Fatah) from Gaza, and started attacking Israel. Hamas is what put Bibi into power.

You are the one who has it backwards.

After Israel unilaterally handed over Gaza to the Palestinians in 2006 under PM Ehud Olmert, PA (Fatah) was pushed out of Gaza after Hamas won the the last election they ever had (18 years ago), then consolidated power by declaring no more elections, no more PA/Fatah, and proceeded to beat up, imprison, throw from rooftops, or otherwise maim/kill any Fatah politician, leader, or overt PA sympathizers.

[JimmyCarter]

^jono I've come to expect a more open mind from you than that.



Netanyahu didn't become PM until 3 years after Hamas took over, purged PA (Fatah) from Gaza, and started attacking Israel.

You are the one who has it backwards.

After Israel unilaterally handed over Gaza to the Palestinians under PM Ehud Olmert, PA (Fatah) was pushed out of Gaza after Hamas won the the last election they ever had (18 years ago), then consolidated power by declaring no more elections, no more PA/Fatah, and proceeded to beat up, imprison, throw from rooftops, or otherwise maim/kill any Fatah politician, leader, or overt PA sympathizers.

Sorry, to “keep” PA out, not that that changes much.

[MultiVerse]

It changes a lot. Hamas still to this day enjoys majority support among Palestinians. Cracks are starting to show as Palestinians began to realize their support for Hamas brought them to where they are today. Even so, Hamas is still more popular than Fatah and the Palestinian authority among Palestinians.

The Palestinian cause ruined Gaza. Support for Hamas turned Gaza to ruble. People who argue the cause is just now see people who once lived in homes living in tents. The more people blame Israel the worse things get for Palestinians. When people like LSL say Israel was a gift to Jews because of the Holocaust, despite being not true, it encourages Palestinian groups like Hamas to start futile wars that wreck the lives of Palestinians.

Westerners cosplaying as revolutionaries arguing for the destruction of Israel from a safe distance are only making things worse for Palestinians. They're not helping anybody. They're selfishly deriving smug satisfaction from believing they’re on the right side of history without ever being held morally responsible for anything. For example:

Thanks for that. I didn't really make it past the first word.

[summit]

Sorry, to “keep” PA out, not that that changes much.

Bibi didn't keep PA out of Gaza. Hamas kicked PA out of Gaza. If PA had allowed elections in West Bank, Hamas would have thrown Fatah/PA out of West Bank too.

Fatah/PA is immensely unpopular. Hamas keeps PA out. The people of Gaza kept the PA out too... Now, who knows?

One thing is for sure, Netanyahu in no way kept the PA from returning to power in Gaza because the only way they were coming back was by force of arms.

I'm not here to defend Netanyahu. But the absolutely false narrative that Bibi somehow brought Hamas to power or kept them there is really just a classic propaganda move to make the moral claim that the Oct 7 is actually all Israel's fault in the darkest of conspiracy, not unlike the "9/11 was an inside job" mouthebreathers. The conspiracy claim of a self-inflicted wound is meant to delegitimize any right Israel has to defend itself.

Hamas's previous attacks were what put Bibi into power. Hamas's recent attacks will be what pushes Bibi out of power.

[MultiVerse]

Bibi had a symbiotic relationship with Hamas. Bibi argued only he could keep Israel safe and Hamas made sure Israel was under constant threat. Bibi didn't force the PA out. Hamas did that. Bibi gambled Hamas rhetoric was mostly talk and that by allowing billions of dollars to flow from Qatar to Hamas coffers, a corrupt Hamas would live fat off the riches of Arab oil wealth not bothering to actually attack Israel in force.

It's not unlike elite universities in America accepting billions of Qatari donations never expecting it to blow up in their faces. Watch as the Saudi foreign minister calls out Qatar's direct involvement in terrorism: "The Qataris harbor and shelter terrorists, that is unacceptable... There is a list of terror financiers--living in Qatar." This is from 2018 but it still holds true today:

https://x.com/EYakoby/status/1822433680780112166

[summit]

Israel recovers the bodies of 6 hostages.

Hamas is still holding 109 hostages.

[mcski]

Ironic Hypocrisy for the Saudis to be calling out anyone for terrorism.

[MultiVerse]

True. Given what MBS did to Khashoggi .. not to mention the Saudi Dawa in the 1980s exporting their miserable interpretation of Salafism plus funding (and involvement) in 9/11.

It's also true the Saudi government enacted reforms since then including criminalizing and denouncing support for terrorism. The Saudis also sentenced five people to death for Khashoggi’s killing, while three others were given a total of 24 years in prison for covering up the crime and violating other laws. Mohammed bin Salman even personally denounced the killing, despite his likely involvement, making his statement both a farce and a step forward.

[jono]

^jono I've come to expect a more open mind from you than that.

I don't follow the logic of that. Are you saying open-mindedness makes Bibi's historical support for Hamas more acceptable? Or that if I were open-minded enough I could accept the utility of MV's 100 word hyper-rationalizing an over-broad generalization that might have saved 3 words to begin with--or could have been chosen for reasons besides laziness? I don't see where my closed-mindedness explains either of these.

[jono]

It
Westerners cosplaying as revolutionaries arguing for the destruction of Israel from a safe distance are only making things worse for Palestinians. They're not helping anybody. They're selfishly deriving smug satisfaction from believing they’re on the right side of history without ever being held morally responsible for anything. For example:

Donald?? Fuck off with that disingenuous bullshit.

[summit]

Bibi's historical support for Hamas more acceptable?

When you say "support" it doesn't mean what you think it means unless you mean "not bombing them to dust."
Did you mean limited practical toleration and noninterventionalism?
Relaxed isolation?
War of the words and arms interdiction while ignoring some money flows?
Hubris and flippant disregard for the threat Hamas truly posed?
All in all, not that different than the Obama admin and Iran?

Or that if I were open-minded enough I could accept the utility of MV's 100 word hyper-rationalizing an over-broad generalization that might have saved 3 words to begin with--or could have been chosen for reasons besides laziness? I don't see where my closed-mindedness explains either of these.

Your adhom characterizatoins of his response that you supposedly didn't read does absolutely nothing to refute his points.
Are you arguing that you were being lazy instead?
Or are you arguing that "I don't need to read what he says because I don't like it" is somehow neither lazy nor close minded?

[MultiVerse]

Donald?? Fuck off with that disingenuous bullshit.

You're the one who is disingenuous and dishonest for failing to recognize that which is plainly obvious. If you don't know any facts, any theory can fit the "facts" you do know.

[jono]

If you don't know any facts, any theory can fit the "facts" you do know.

Thanks for describing your strawman process. I wondered if I was imagining that. You're clearly very industrious.

[MultiVerse]

Your views are incoherent, lightly-held, and wrong. And that's not a strawman.

When you say "support" it doesn't mean what you think it means unless you mean "not bombing them to dust."
Did you mean limited practical toleration and noninterventionalism?
Relaxed isolation?
War of the words and arms interdiction while ignoring some money flows?
Hubris and flippant disregard for the threat Hamas truly posed?
All in all, not that different than the Obama admin and Iran?

It's the incoherence of only blaming Israel while paternalisticly failing to allow for any Palestinian agency.

[J. Barron DeJong]

Thanks for describing your strawman process. I wondered if I was imagining that. You're clearly very industrious.

It’s a process more and more people seem to be getting first hand experience with lately.

[jono]

When you say "support" it doesn't mean what you think it means unless you mean "not bombing them to dust."
Did you mean limited practical toleration and noninterventionalism?
Relaxed isolation?
War of the words and arms interdiction while ignoring some money flows?
Hubris and flippant disregard for the threat Hamas truly posed?
All in all, not that different than the Obama admin and Iran?

I'm saying that in the long run laziness is poorly achieved if you have to justify saving 3 words with 100. For example, I was being lazy when I chose the word "support" because that's imprecise, and wastes effort. But as you've illustrated, you know the ways in which he's been supportive (and hasn't), as has been covered in this thread. So the risk of missing each other's point on that seems unrealized to me. I'm not going to waste time on redundant virtue signaling to convince you of that, though. Long term laziness >> short term.

Your adhom characterizatoins of his response that you supposedly didn't read does absolutely nothing to refute his points.
Are you arguing that you were being lazy instead?
Or are you arguing that "I don't need to read what he says because I don't like it" is somehow neither lazy nor close minded?

I skimmed the rest, but it appears I got the gist of it. Thanks. My argument is that it's worth it to spend the time and effort to say "Hamas" instead of "Palestinian" even if the perfect flow of your sentence needs another word or two that way. And that if you're willing to spend a hundred words defending the "lazy" choice it's not because you're lazy. Unable to admit a mistake? Actually trying to push a bigoted narrative? Something else? I don't care. That's where my laziness comes in.

[MultiVerse]

IMy argument is that it's worth it to spend the time and effort to say "Hamas" instead of "Palestinian" even if the perfect flow of your sentence needs another word or two that way.

And similarly, my argument is that the two are not in fact entirely separable. That's an inconvenient truth that people must contend with. It's not a narrative. It's not bigoted. Hamas does in fact enjoy majority support among Palestinians and is itself made up of Palestinians.

[jono]

Your views are incoherent, lightly-held, and wrong. And that's not a strawman.

Given the completeness of your knowledge of my views, particularly in the specific instance cited, I can't imagine a better example. Thank you. For a second I was afraid "Donald??" was going too far.