Hahahahahahahaha Scott Ritter among other things hahahahahaha. What other things do you wanna elaborate? It wouldn't be he's a pedophile is it hahahahahahahahah Jesus man you like the shittest of the shittest humans. Do you have any judgement of character at all?
I do care. In all honesty I abhor all violence. Against Jews, against Arabs, against whites, blacks, Asians, old, young, on and on. And I don't take sides not because I am trying to argue both, but because I am trying to look at things objectively without letting emotions bias my opinion.
It's irrelevant because those additional details really don't shift the essence of what you are arguing. You have a population that feels threatened by a hostile neighbor. Your solution is that they should leave and give up their land to that neighbor because they can find a new home in China. You can apply that to the Palestinians like you are now...or you can apply that to the Israelis, which we both know would be anti-semitic by most standards. You can't just add details to rationalize a difference and thus justify different standards.
Israel is not really threatened by the "Palestinians" to an existential level. They are bothersome. They can put everything they have into years of prep and kill 1400 people, then they get swatted down 3 times over. That's why it is different. Gaza and the West Bank exist at the generosity of the Israelis. Israel exists because their enemies are too weak to destroy them. Israel has the option of winning through military action. Hamas doesn't. If a lion and a zebra are fighting over territory, it is a good idea for the zebra to leave. The lion is perfectly happy to fight it out.
Israel chief complaint is that her enemies which to destroy her and end it's existence. So either Israel is lying about that, or you're wrong here.
That is Israel's reason for their security measures. Their security measures are meant to ensure they will not be destroyed (up to and including Mutually Assured Destruction via nuclear weapons). They are fighting an existential battle, but they are winning. Their concerns of annihilation are not based on Hamas acting alone. They can easily wipe out everyone in Gaza is they so choose. Their existential concerns are attacks by the Muslim world as a whole (most particularly if Iran gets nuclear weapons). So no, they are not lying, and I am not wrong, they are just talking about a different threat. Hamas cannot militarily defeat Israel and none of the Muslim countries can defeat Israel without paying such a cost that it would not be worth doing. Hamas, on the other hand, cannot hope to fend off Israel. Their only hope is that if they put enough innocent people in the way, either Israel will balk, or some third party or parties will step in to restrain Israel. Absent the kindness of others, they are doomed. Was the October 7 attack so outrageous that no one will step in to stop Israel from wiping out Hamas? That remains to be seen.
No it's that you're attracted to ****ing losers. You can keep calling me whatever you want if that makes you happy. When someone is a convicted pedophile that's usually what people describe them as. Not as whatever bullshit you did
Right so they can eliminate that existential threat from Iran by moving someplace like China just like you suggested before. My opinion - no people should ever have to leave their home - ever. No one. People fight to defend their home. America was built because it refused to leave their homes from the British. You're arguing that the weaker side should flee. Always. You're actually trying to make a case for ethnic cleansing which to me is just a bizarre thing to do.
They don't need to, because they have a nuclear deterrent. That's the point of MAD. Hamas has no such deterrent. They already shot their wad and while the events of October 7 were awful, they were not enough to blunt the Israeli response. What? America was built because people did leave their homes fleeing the British. The colonists left Britain. Then they refused to pay taxes without representation. The British came over and tried to put down a rebellion, but they were not fighting for territory, they were trying to get the colonists back under control of the crown. Unless you are talking about the war of 1812 (in which the US was trying to gain territory, so that also wouldn't really make sense). The Native Americans were the ones dealing with a more powerful hostile neighbor, and they correctly moved away to a place they were allowed to go. They could have continued trying to fight a futile battle, but they just would have been wiped out completely. The US did fight territorial wars with Spain and Mexico, and both times the weaker side retreated and the United States gained significant territory. I am making a case that it makes more sense to move to a better situation than to continue a futile 60 year war in which every major offensive is a loss for your side. I said probably dozens of times over the last several years that the people in Gaza and the West Bank should just stop having conflict with Israel and instead focus on improving their own lot in life. That wasn't the direction they chose. Instead they chose endless war and IMO the October 7 attacks were so egregious that Israel will not be satisfied by a return to the status quo. As such, the people of Gaza are left with a number of generally poor options. They can try to get out of the way without leaving Gaza (Hamas seems to be trying to prevent this, but there are also lots of stories of people who have moved below the evacuation line, so it seems possible the remaining people in the north are willfully remaining), allow themselves to be used as human shields and hope that eventually someone stops Israel (be that Israel or someone else), flee the country, join the fight on the side of Hamas, or join the fight on the side of Israel. None of them are great options. To me the most attractive would be flee the country. Ethnic cleansing would be if Israel forced them to leave the country or die. They have not done so. Voluntary emigration is not ethnic cleansing, of course, even if it is 100% of the people.
Yes you are saying the weaker side should leave to the stronger side. The British didn't flee Britain because the were losing a war. And hey fought to defend their homes in the US. The US did take land from the weaker Natives. And this is widely viewed as a type of Ethnic cleansing. The Germans did it to Jews - moving Jews to concentration camps - which according to you, makes total sense and is a-ok.
