This is scary

[unicorn]

5 hours ago, Moses said:

The significant difference btw Stalin's USSR and US is just fact, what Stalin's repressions killed citizens of USSR, while US govt prefers to kill citizens of other countries...

The significant difference between Russia/USSR and every other country on the planet, is that Russia/USSR is the only country that brags about how many of its own citizens it kills versus how successful they are at preventing their own citizens' deaths. Listen to any Russian talk about WW2, for instance, and you will be drowned out by the thumping of his chest at how proud he is of all his country's own deaths. Quite sad, actually.

During the battle of Iwo Jima, 3 times fewer US troops died than Japanese, although the Japanese were defending from fortified positions. The fact that your leaders kill their own people is nothing to beam with pride over. Instead of being a source of pride, it's a sad commentary on the Russia psyche. 

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, vinapu said:

or created an impression he did. In that conflict USA was almost always one sided , exception being Suez Crisis only.

Not saying it's wrong, not saying it's right but if I have dispute with you and  your friend will offer his service as mediator, chances are solution he offers may not be palatable for me

That's a fair point.  It is very easy to say the US is anything but a neutral mediator.  ESPECIALLY when it comes to Israel.

That said, I think Fareed Zakaria is objectively correct in the long interview I posted with him above.   The Palestinians are losing.  And the longer losers wait to cut a deal, the worse the deal gets.

On a bumper sticker, it works like this.  You want $10 for something, and I offer you $5.  You say no.  A decade later, I offer you $4 for the same thing.  You say no again.  A decade later, I offer you $3 for the same thing.  You say no again.  A decade later I say, fuck it, it's mine.  And if you don't give it me, I'll kill you.

To be clear, that is not the specific example Fareed himself used.  He argued Israel is basically winning.  Since 1948, Jews have gained increasingly certain control of the state they live in.  And any peace deal with Palestinians keeps getting worse.  He said Palestinians should be thinking that when you are on the losing side, you are better off cutting a deal sooner rather than later.

To divert for one paragraph, that may end up being true with Ukraine.  There was an argument made in 2022 that the best chance for the best deal for Ukraine was last year.  Right after they had kicked Putin's ass and taken back a lot of the land he seized.  Now it looks much more like a war of attrition that Russia will never win, but also never lose.   But part of my point is that, as the poll I posted above shows, 90 % of Ukrainians have no interest in giving any part of Ukraine away to Russia.  Ukrainians, like Palestinians, may ultimately regret that kind of hard line in the future.

2000 Camp David Summit

It's completely fair to argue that as soon as you use the words "Bill Clinton" or "US President," you have a good argument that a deal can't be fair.  Especially if you are a Palestinian. 

As Fareed pointed out, the deal they could have gotten in 2000 was worse than the original deal they could have had in 1947.  That Wikipedia article on the 2000 deal cites polls showing that Palestinians tended to agree with Arafat, that the deal wasn't good enough.  Meanwhile, Israeli Jews felt Barak went way too far.  He, and Labor leadership, were history. 

So it is simply a fact, whether it is viewed as good or bad, that in 2000 Palestinians lost a deal that is almost certainly way better than any deal they will ever get under any realistic scenario.  Hindsight is, of course, 20/20.  But the immediate consequence was that israeli Jews took a hard right turn.  And have mostly not looked back.  One exception, as Fareed again notes, is Olmert.  Who offered a watered down version of the 2000 deal.  I think Fareed did nail the key point.  When you are on the losing side, it is not in your interest to delay making a deal.

If you follow my logic, it leads to one other interesting conclusion that is extremely relevant.  If Palestinians lost, it must mean Israel won.  Fareed stated, correctly, that Israel keeps gaining effective control over more territory, and not the other way around.  To be coldly objective, even right now when the worst fears of Jews all over the world have been very understandably triggered by a savage terrorist attack, the security of Jews in the world can't be compared to the 1940's.  6 million Jews are not being slaughtered.  History since 1948 has not worked out badly for israel, in general.  Fareed is being objective in stating Israel "won."  And I think that obviously undergirds a lot of the Israeli military's thinking.  "Security" basically means we keep winning.  And we just have to keep the Palestinians - aka half the population - under our control.  That is the core of the Netanyahu Doctrine. 

It makes perfect sense to me that Israel should feel like winners, with one caveat.  Which I am guessing right now Israeli Jews are very aware of.  Just be mindful, Israeli Jews, that the losers are of course going to behead your children every single chance they get.  So what you won is land, and a dead baby.  That's the logic of this.  Every Jewish Mom has to worry whether her child is safe.  And every Palestinian Mom has to worry about whether her kid will grow up to be Hamas, or whatever takes its place.  That is the small price Israel has to pay for their victory.  For now, my strong hunch is that Israel is gong to have to learn the hard way that the kind of victory they want against Hamas isn't really a victory. 

Sadly, it is almost certain to get much worse.  So to me it is a massive human tragedy that peace was not achieved in 2000.  There is plenty of blame to go around for that, as the Wikipedia article notes.

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

There's a tautology for you. Obviously, if the movement failed, it didn't result in a country, so it cannot be named. One cannot name the Basque Republic, Tamil Republic, nor the Catalan Republic because those peoples' fights for independence failed. Your question was the equivalent to asking "Name me someone who failed but succeeded." Just silliness, really. Of course, there are quite a few countries which de facto govern themselves, but are not recognized either universally (i.e. Kosovo), or even barely at all (i.e. Transnistria). 

Actually, you did answer my question.  Good job.

My question was of course a sarcastic one.  @vinapu made the same point.

4 hours ago, vinapu said:

most countries independent now were never independent until they become one including that small state USA squeezed between Canada and Mexico. Only handful of  countries disappeared from map only to return years later - Lithuania, Poland , Czechia, Ethiopia, Egypt just to name a few

I like the nuance @vinapu added.  Even nations that disappeared for a long time tend to come back.  Israel knows that is true, for sure.  That is the power of nationalism, or religion, or both.

You also make a good point, @unicorn.  A very quick Google check confirmed what I would have guessed.  Most separatist or secessionist movements fail. It's a bit weird.  India could kick out the English.  But the Tamils can't separate from India.  The Confederacy as an institution and as a military was way more powerful than Blacks in the US were in the 19th century.  Or even than Blacks in America are today, even though we have a Black Secretary of Defense.  Yet the Confederacy lost, and Blacks have gradually but continuously gained power.  Even though it did not happen through Black separatism.  So how did that happen? 

I think there's a difference between part of a nation wanting to secede, on the one hand, and a people wanting to be a nation, or have equal political and human rights.  Palestinians in Israel are the latter.  History suggests that even when you are in the far weaker position, your national or racial or religious identity is not going away.  Nor will your desire for independence, nationhood, security, and/or political and human rights. 

Again, Jews know this as well or better than most people.

[Moses]

5 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

He argued that in the long run those nukes might help Ukraine keep its independence. 

Ukraine already sold missiles to Iran in the begin of 2000's. 

With nukes in Ukraine, Iran now will nuclear state already - Ukraine is most corrupted country in world. Taliban already has weapon what West supplies Ukraine for to fight with Russia.

[Moses]

5 hours ago, vinapu said:

Is this what you think or you are quoting Margarita Simonian

It is from speeches of candidate to US president 2024 Cornel West.

[Moses]

5 hours ago, vinapu said:

had he wait bit longer Russia possibly would take over nor only Kuril Islands but also whole Hokkaido and would have Winter Olympics in 1972 instead of waiting for Sochi.

So you said US made two nuclear strikes and wiped 2 Japanese cities for to stop Russians? 

[forky123]

21 minutes ago, Moses said:

So you said US made two nuclear strikes and wiped 2 Japanese cities for to stop Russians? 

No, there were multiple reasons as there are for most things:

- Japan's refusal to surrender.

- Large scale fire bombings had failed to induce surrender

- The number of deaths likely to US and Japanese troops having to continue the pacific war

- Stalin had declared war on Japan as agreed at Yalta and US wanted a show of power to stop Russia taking parts of Japan. 

[Moses]

26 minutes ago, forky123 said:

No, there were multiple reasons as there are for most things:

- Japan's refusal to surrender.

- Large scale fire bombings had failed to induce surrender

- The number of deaths likely to US and Japanese troops having to continue the pacific war

Well, well... what we have now?

• Ukraine refuse to surrender also
• Russian fire failed to induce surrender (yet)
• The number of deaths (read above)

So my question is: should Russia use nukes as well?

Or:

• Palestine refuse to surrender also
• Israeli fire failed to induce surrender (yet)
• The number of deaths (read above)

Should Israel to nuke Palestine?

[forky123]

When either war gets to the death toll of WW2 in the Pacific come back to me. Until then your false equivalences are pathetic. 

[Moses]

33 minutes ago, forky123 said:

When either war gets to the death toll of WW2 in the Pacific come back to me. Until then your false equivalences are pathetic. 

So, Israel should wait till death toll will be comparable to WW2 in the Pacific and then nuke Palestine?

[forky123]

No, no one should consider using nukes until the alternative is more horrific than a nuclear war. The only people threatening the use of nukes at this point are the lunatic dictator in Russia and his minion in Belarus. 

[Moses]

11 minutes ago, forky123 said:

No, no one should consider using nukes until the alternative is more horrific than a nuclear war. The only people threatening the use of nukes at this point are the lunatic dictator in Russia and his minion in Belarus. 

Oh, dear... are you sure?
 

"Nuking Gaza is an option, population should ‘go to Ireland or deserts’" just said Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu in interview to radio Kan (Israel)

Eliyahu also voices his objection during the interview to allowing any humanitarian aid into Gaza, saying “we wouldn’t hand the Nazis humanitarian aid,” and charging that “there is no such thing as uninvolved civilians in Gaza.”

He backs retaking the Strip’s territory and restoring the settlements there. Asked about the fate of the Palestinian population, he says: “They can go to Ireland or deserts, the monsters in Gaza should find a solution by themselves.”

He says the northern Strip has no right to exist, adding that anyone waving a Palestinian or Hamas flag “shouldn’t continue living on the face of the earth.”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/far-right-minister-nuking-gaza-is-an-option-population-should-go-to-ireland-or-deserts/

 

[forky123]

You're right. The only LEADERS threatening the use of nukes at this point are the lunatic dictator in Russia and his minion in Belarus. What Left or Right wing nut job ministers say is pretty irrelevant. 

[Moses]

4 minutes ago, forky123 said:

You're right. The only LEADERS threatening the use of nukes at this point are the lunatic dictator in Russia and his minion in Belarus. What Left or Right wing nut job ministers say is pretty irrelevant. 

Aha. So now we have:

• leaders who ordered to drop nuclear bombs are heroes
• leaders who threatened to drop nuclear bombs are "lunatics dictators"

Is it correct?

[forky123]

Oh, fuck off with your ridiculous interpretations. Show me anywhere where I've called Truman a hero. Putin was a lunatic dictator long before he threatened the use of nukes. His threat of nukes just makes him an extremely dangerous lunatic dictator.

[Moses]

1 hour ago, forky123 said:

fuck off with your ridiculous interpretations

Iuppiter iratus ergo nefas

You are the victim of the Western propaganda, "history is written by the winners".

[reader]

Statistically, this thread is pulling more replies and views than some really good trip reports. The difference between these very divergent categories is that we feel better after reading the TR’s and crappy after reading the more “politically” oriented posts.

I wonder if we can all agree on these points, none of which I believe are in dispute:

1, Violent deaths in war of any kind are all repugnant.

2, Arguing with someone with different views on these matters never causes another to change their mind—no matter how compelling we believe are arguments to be—and is a bonafide waste of time and bandwidth.

3. We all—hopefully—have more productive things to do (I.e., do another off, get another massage, write a TR or venue report, plan another trip, call a sick friend).

[forky123]

15 minutes ago, Moses said:

Iuppiter iratus ergo nefas

You are the victim of the Western propaganda, "history is written by the winners".

You aren't interpreting what I say. You are creating what you think I said from your own mind with no reliance on what I actually said. You know little of me so your thoughts on my victim status are irrelevant.

 

4 minutes ago, reader said:

2, Arguing with someone with different views on these matters never causes another to change their mind and is a bonafide waste of time and bandwidth.

Isn't that the very thing a forum is for? It would be a very boring place if everyone agreed or never posted anything someone might disagree with.

 

6 minutes ago, reader said:

3. We all—hopefully—have more productive things to do (I.e., do another off, get another massage, write a TR or venue report, plan another trip, call a sick friend).

I'm currently working and getting double time for Sunday. My job is such that I have busy periods and then have to wait for results. The forum is something I read in down time.

[reader]

6 minutes ago, forky123 said:

I'm currently working and getting double time for Sunday. My job is such that I have busy periods and then have to wait for results. The forum is something I read in down time.

It must be a government job.🙂

[forky123]

4 minutes ago, reader said:

It must be a government job.🙂

Nope, work for an IT Service Provider. Sunday is a popular day for updates and such.

[EmmetK]

13 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

When Hamas kills 1500 or so Israelis, mostly women and kids, it is genocide.

When the IDF kills 9000 or so Palestinians, mostly women and kids, of course it is only and exactly what Israel needs to do to survive.  That's all.

If the IDF kills 90,000 Palestinians by the time it is done, that's just survival, too.  Duh!

.

There is ZERO moral equivalence, ZERO!, between what Hamas did and what Israel is doing.

Hamas terrorists entered Israel for the sole purpose of slaughtering, butchering, beheading, raping, and massacring as many innocent civilians as possible.

If you have any evidence of the IDF ripping open the bellies of pregnant Palestinian women and throwing the babies into ovens, please share it. If you have any evidence of the IDF throwing grenades into shelters where families are hiding, please share it. If you have any evidence of the IDF soldiers gouging out the eyes of innocent Palestinian civilians, please share it. If you have any evidence of the IDF raping girls, please share it. If you have any evidence of the IDF torturing children while their parents are forced to look on, please share it. If you have any evidence of the IDF taking civilians hostages, please share it. I could go on and on. Israel goes out of its way to mitigate civilian casualties. But it is not always possible when Hamas uses civilians as human shields. Needless to say there is NO equivalence between Hamas and Israel.

Israel is targeting the terrorist butchers. They have given all civilians notices by test, phone calls, and dropping leaflets to warn them in advance to evacuate the area. If civilians ignore the warnings, that is their choice.
Hamas uses civilians as human shields. They built tunnels, underground bunkers, and terrorist command centers underneath schools and hospitals. Israel has done what it can to avoid killing innocents, but ultimately if they decide to remain, they are doing so at their own risk.

No nation would tolerate the slaughter of their innocents, Israel is no different. Nor is the US. Following the Pearl Harbor attack, when over 2,000 Americans were killed, Truman ordered the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That killed 140,000. Was that a mistake?  Was that genocide?

Israel must do whatever it needs to do to ensure its survival, and prevent these terrorist attacks from ever occurring again.
And it will. 

[Moses]

1 hour ago, EmmetK said:

Was that a mistake?  Was that genocide?

Sure. What else it may be?

Do you have another name for to targeting civilians and wipe 2 cities by nuclear strike?

[forky123]

24 minutes ago, Moses said:

Sure. What else it may be?

Do you have another name for to targeting civilians and wipe 2 cities by nuclear strike?

You might want to look up the term genocide. 

[alvnv]

6 hours ago, Moses said:

Well, well... what we have now?

• Ukraine refuse to surrender also
• Russian fire failed to induce surrender (yet)
• The number of deaths (read above)

So my question is: should Russia use nukes as well?

Or:

• Palestine refuse to surrender also
• Israeli fire failed to induce surrender (yet)
• The number of deaths (read above)

Should Israel to nuke Palestine?

The Ukraine and Israel did not start the war, Japan did. The only comparison that is valid is that between Hamas and Russian government - they both use terrorist strategies and, in the process, are failing their countries and peoples.

[Moses]

15 minutes ago, alvnv said:

The Ukraine and Israel did not start the war, Japan did. The only comparison that is valid is that between Hamas and Russian government - they both use terrorist strategies and, in the process, are failing their countries and peoples.

Tell us dear, why started war Hamas, but Israel punishing Palestine? 70% of victims are kids and woman.