7 ms·

Are the non-alarmists alarmed yet? If not, when? What’s your red line?

mardifoufs 2y ago
What? Why? This is a lot better than the alternative, which is Israel being in control of Gaza. And this is coming from someone who actually has friends living in Gaza. This is very good news in my opinion. Americans are an almost neutral party compared to the IDF. Yes ideally, no one would occupy Gaza but again, the alternative is to let the army that's been genociding them for months occupy Gaza. Edit: Though if they actually go through with the plans to displace the local population, then yes it's just a continuation of said genocide. But as a temporary measure, this is still better than the Israeli alternative.
- clipsy 2y ago
  > This is a lot better than the alternative, which is Israel being in control of Gaza. And this is coming from someone who actually has friends living in Gaza. Did you miss the part where he explicitly envisions all Palestinians in Gaza being relocated (to another country in the middle east, of course; America won't be accepting them)? Are you naive enough to think that's going to go well? I hope for your friends' sake that this boondoggle gets exactly as much traction as the border wall and buying Greenland. Edit: I posted this before you acknowledged the relocation plans. However, I have to point out, FTA: > Earlier, in the Oval Office, when he also raised the idea, a reporter asked if Palestinians relocated would have the right to return. > "Why would they want to return?" he responded. > "It would be my hope that we could do something really nice, really good, where they wouldn't want to return," he said. Why would they want to return? That place has been hell. It's been one of the meanest, one of the meanest, toughest places on earth," he said.
  - mardifoufs 2y ago
    I agree with you that if it actually goes through (always a doubt with this administration lol), it will be really bad. But, imo letting people getting bombed while doing nothing about it is not much better. If it actually stops the current large scale humanitarian disaster, it's still better than what has been going on for more than a year with complete inaction from the US. Israel was open about their goal of razing the city to the ground, regardless of what it meant in terms of human cost. And Israel would have gone through with it, as they have had absolutely no consequences up until noe. It was their end goal since October 7. Whereas this can at least stop the bloodshed, and Americans are much less likely to be fully committed to actually erasing Palestinians from the territory than Israelis would be. Again, in this case I'm just in favor of any action that puts something between Israel and the Gaza population. That they even seriously discuss nazi-like population displacement is insane, but this entire situation has become so desperate, and the Israel government has been given so much leniency by every western government... that this lunacy is still better than the inevitable results of letting israel have free reigns over Gaza.
    - clipsy 2y ago
      > If it actually stops the current large scale humanitarian disaster There is absolutely no chance that it "stops" the large scale humanitarian disaster; the only thing on the table here is continuing the large scale humanitarian disaster to the exact same conclusion that Israel wanted. > That they even seriously discuss nazi-like population displacement is insane, but this entire situation has become so desperate, and the Israel government has been given so much leniency by every western government... that this lunacy is still better than the inevitable results of letting israel have free reigns over Gaza. Never forget that you said this; perhaps at least you will learn a lesson from it.
      - mardifoufs 2y ago
        Why? Again, what do you think is the current alternative? The previous administration was basically letting israel do whatever it wants, so again, I'm not sure what's your point? The only thing that was going to happen was Israel taking control over Gaza as a whole. Do you actually believe that that would've been better than American troops acting as a (very weak, for sure) tampon between the IDF and Gaza? As you said, the worst that can happen is Israel getting its way in Gaza anyways... but that's exactly what was going to be happening given the complete inaction from every (relevant) nation/state. There's no lesson to learn from what I said. And I'm way past the point of having any delusions that something better could've happened for Gaza at this point. Westerner idealism is fine sometimes, but in this case, no one cares about Gaza. No country was going to save Gaza from Israel, and no one was going to stop Israel from doing anything it wanted to do there. In fact, no western nation was even willing to even just condemn Israel. That's just the reality. I guess the previous administration made Americans feel better by just looking the other way while fully supporting the deaths of the Palestinian population? Like what's the lesson to be learnt here?
        HDThoreaun 2y ago
        > The previous administration was basically letting israel do whatever it wants Israel wants to expel every palestinian from the west bank, so no, the previous administration was in no way letting israel do whatever it wants.
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  With the mass deportations ongoing, do you think your friends will stay in Gaza?
KingOfCoders 2y ago
Canada ("51st state", by coincidence my favorite song), Mexico, Greenland, Gaza. There is no red line for megalomania.
tim333 2y ago
I'm not unduly alarmed. Better the jews and palestinians can be united in asking wtf Trump is on about than they be killing each other.

What? Why? This is a lot better than the alternative, which is Israel being in control of Gaza. And this is coming from someone who actually has friends living in Gaza. This is very good news in my opinion. Americans are an almost neutral party compared to the IDF. Yes ideally, no one would occupy Gaza but again, the alternative is to let the army that's been genociding them for months occupy Gaza. Edit: Though if they actually go through with the plans to displace the local population, then yes it's just a continuation of said genocide. But as a temporary measure, this is still better than the Israeli alternative.

clipsy 2y ago
> This is a lot better than the alternative, which is Israel being in control of Gaza. And this is coming from someone who actually has friends living in Gaza. Did you miss the part where he explicitly envisions all Palestinians in Gaza being relocated (to another country in the middle east, of course; America won't be accepting them)? Are you naive enough to think that's going to go well? I hope for your friends' sake that this boondoggle gets exactly as much traction as the border wall and buying Greenland. Edit: I posted this before you acknowledged the relocation plans. However, I have to point out, FTA: > Earlier, in the Oval Office, when he also raised the idea, a reporter asked if Palestinians relocated would have the right to return. > "Why would they want to return?" he responded. > "It would be my hope that we could do something really nice, really good, where they wouldn't want to return," he said. Why would they want to return? That place has been hell. It's been one of the meanest, one of the meanest, toughest places on earth," he said.
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  I agree with you that if it actually goes through (always a doubt with this administration lol), it will be really bad. But, imo letting people getting bombed while doing nothing about it is not much better. If it actually stops the current large scale humanitarian disaster, it's still better than what has been going on for more than a year with complete inaction from the US. Israel was open about their goal of razing the city to the ground, regardless of what it meant in terms of human cost. And Israel would have gone through with it, as they have had absolutely no consequences up until noe. It was their end goal since October 7. Whereas this can at least stop the bloodshed, and Americans are much less likely to be fully committed to actually erasing Palestinians from the territory than Israelis would be. Again, in this case I'm just in favor of any action that puts something between Israel and the Gaza population. That they even seriously discuss nazi-like population displacement is insane, but this entire situation has become so desperate, and the Israel government has been given so much leniency by every western government... that this lunacy is still better than the inevitable results of letting israel have free reigns over Gaza.
  - clipsy 2y ago
    > If it actually stops the current large scale humanitarian disaster There is absolutely no chance that it "stops" the large scale humanitarian disaster; the only thing on the table here is continuing the large scale humanitarian disaster to the exact same conclusion that Israel wanted. > That they even seriously discuss nazi-like population displacement is insane, but this entire situation has become so desperate, and the Israel government has been given so much leniency by every western government... that this lunacy is still better than the inevitable results of letting israel have free reigns over Gaza. Never forget that you said this; perhaps at least you will learn a lesson from it.
    - mardifoufs 2y ago
      Why? Again, what do you think is the current alternative? The previous administration was basically letting israel do whatever it wants, so again, I'm not sure what's your point? The only thing that was going to happen was Israel taking control over Gaza as a whole. Do you actually believe that that would've been better than American troops acting as a (very weak, for sure) tampon between the IDF and Gaza? As you said, the worst that can happen is Israel getting its way in Gaza anyways... but that's exactly what was going to be happening given the complete inaction from every (relevant) nation/state. There's no lesson to learn from what I said. And I'm way past the point of having any delusions that something better could've happened for Gaza at this point. Westerner idealism is fine sometimes, but in this case, no one cares about Gaza. No country was going to save Gaza from Israel, and no one was going to stop Israel from doing anything it wanted to do there. In fact, no western nation was even willing to even just condemn Israel. That's just the reality. I guess the previous administration made Americans feel better by just looking the other way while fully supporting the deaths of the Palestinian population? Like what's the lesson to be learnt here?
      - HDThoreaun 2y ago
        > The previous administration was basically letting israel do whatever it wants Israel wants to expel every palestinian from the west bank, so no, the previous administration was in no way letting israel do whatever it wants.
KingOfCoders 2y ago
With the mass deportations ongoing, do you think your friends will stay in Gaza?

KingOfCoders 2y ago

Canada ("51st state", by coincidence my favorite song), Mexico, Greenland, Gaza. There is no red line for megalomania.

tim333 2y ago

I'm not unduly alarmed. Better the jews and palestinians can be united in asking wtf Trump is on about than they be killing each other.