Everyone here should choose option 3, but they wont.
Everyone here should choose option 3, but they wont.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68006607.amp
I mean cutting off energy and water while the government claims they want "Total Victory" over the Palestinian people as they are being thrown into camps.They just shelled another aid truck and killed at least 20 starving persons that tried to get some food.
That's pretty clear cut
Everyone here should choose option 3, but they wont.When will you stop making alts and get the hint that you aren't welcome here?
Everyone here should choose option 3, but they wont.
When will you stop making alts and get the hint that you aren't welcome here?
You may ignore and/or block me if you want to stay in your echo chamber safe space full of snuggles and unanimous agreement. I encourage it actually. Please. Block me right now.Then what would you call it, if not genocide?
Isreal reaction is overreach and denial of their actions, but how many have studied the middle east to know that region intimately. I can't say that I studied it for long. That region has never known peace and the number of wars has been like that for centuries. That area never developed beyond always fighting. The brief history that I know.
It was peaceful under the ottomans.It was peaceful under a military regime. Interesting take. They were a melting pot in terms of religions but they were always at war to their expanded border and internal strife... Okay. Let's say that was peaceful.
It was peaceful under a military regime. Interesting take. They were a melting pot in terms of religions but they were always at war to their expanded border and internal strife... Okay. Let's say that was peaceful.Given that that part(Europe/Northern Africa/Eurasia) of the world had never or rarely known extended peace... yeah, calling it peaceful is fair.
You may ignore and/or block me if you want to stay in your echo chamber safe space full of snuggles and unanimous agreement. I encourage it actually. Please. Block me right now.Every time we have alts peddling this same nonsense and trolling they get banned!
It was peaceful under a military regime. Interesting take. They were a melting pot in terms of religions but they were always at war to their expanded border and internal strife... Okay. Let's say that was peaceful.They were around for centuries. They had a very long peace that caused them to fall behind in military power because they weren't using it. Just because the beginning and ending featured conflict doesn't mean it was never peaceful.
Serious Question: It possible to have a total war against a homogeneous country that does not meet the current UN definition of genocide?Yes.
Serious Question: It possible to have a total war against a homogeneous country that does not meet the current UN definition of genocide?
a war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded.
They were around for centuries. They had a very long peace that caused them to fall behind in military power because they weren't using it. Just because the beginning and ending featured conflict doesn't mean it was never peaceful.They were the strongest. The only reason for the current division is their choice during world War 1. Which itself is a complicated war based on treaties between nation.
They were the strongest. The only reason for the current division is their choice during world War 1. Which itself is a complicated war based on treaties between nation.
The regions that are divided this way is the work that while they had peace. People were tolerate of the stronger power that they didn't act and rebellion squashed. That's why I said sure. A stronger nation forcing tribes to live together is the version of peace that worked. The divided nations, as they are now, won't go back to that way. Balance shifted. I'm not sure you can go back to an empire version for the middle east. Basically saying one group should have control of the region again for it to be peaceful.
I'm man enough to admit to the 3rd optionThis is how I see it.
They're certainly committing a lot of war crimes at the least
You could get it back that way. You'd likely just have to crush millions of people and eradicate beliefs. You would basically have to commit genocide against multiple groups in order to have another Ottoman Empire that was remotely as peaceful as it was.Considering this topic is about not going the route of genocide. You are saying the only way for peace in that area is genocide.. Okay. What is my take away here.
Also there is a distinctive difference between "Israel" and "Israel's government". The path Netanyahu and his government chose to go is clearly wrong and should be condemned. However, forgetting about what Hamas did to innocent Israeli civilians as well as the historically difficult situation for jews on the Arabic peninsula should not be forgotten as well.
You could get it back that way. You'd likely just have to crush millions of people and eradicate beliefs. You would basically have to commit genocide against multiple groups in order to have another Ottoman Empire that was remotely as peaceful as it was.
Everyone here should choose option 3, but they wont.
So yeah, if you're targetting a group, but only kill a few and have to back out, I think that'd be genocide (or rather, attempted genocide). Likewise, if you drop a nuke but for reasons that don't involve targetting a specific group of people because of their real of perceived group identity, that's not a genocide.
Everyone here should choose option 3, but they wont.No, it's clearly 'yes'.
"Everyone is dead" is not peace just because the fighting stopped. It is the complete failure at an attempt at achieving peace.I never said it was ideal or something that should even be considered as a realistic or legitimate scenario.
I never said it was ideal or something that should even be considered as a realistic or legitimate scenario.So you basically say Israel can't live in peace through peaceful means by negotiations. That the area is too divided and their current methods are in line with the only solution at work. This is what your line of thinking leads to. Because bloodshed is the only thing that the area will accept.
Just stating that in order to achieve what once was, would more than likely take a lot of bloodshed.
I voted that I do not have enough knowledge, and I say that because of hearing people talk about the ordeal. Most of the time the conversations devolve into "this thing happened" "no it didn't!" People say Hamas are liars while posting video edited by the IDF. People say the IDF are liars while posting video directly from Hamas.
Ultimately my opinion doesn't matter, because I don't engage in debates about it and I haven't really taken a side. But my perspective is really how could I know a definitive answer with what I've been presented?
"Israel" is already enough distinction.English is not my native language, so I'm not familiar with spelling nuances like that. It should be clear what I meant, though.
If referring to the people of Israel, generally the word "Israeli" is used.
We never had this problem with Russia/Russian or China/Chinese, why this one is an exception?
Isreal reaction is overreach and denial of their actions, but how many have studied the middle east to know that region intimately. I can't say that I studied it for long. That region has never known peace and the number of wars has been like that for centuries. That area never developed beyond always fighting. The brief history that I know.Long ago it held the most advanced societies, or so i thought. Progress is math, science, etc. Wasn't perfect by any means and definitely still had human rights issues obviously, but where in the world didn't back then by today's standards.
So you basically say Israel can't live in peace through peaceful means by negotiations. That the area is too divided and their current methods are in line with the only solution at work. This is what your line of thinking leads to. Because bloodshed is the only thing that the area will accept.
Long ago it held the most advanced societies, or so i thought. Progress is math, science, etc. Wasn't perfect by any means and definitely still had human rights issues obviously, but where in the world didn't back then by today's standards.Technology shouldn't be used as a gold standard that way. If you want to use that route, then you must understand that those who were educated during those times were the rich. The gap of rich and poor were more prevalent. Literacy only increased in the last century to this point but it would be very few in comparison back then. Being educated was part of being a ruler. That really begs the question of what people consider peaceful times.