It’s a half-pun about actual piracy. Not sure if illegal fishing is actually considered piracy, but that’s the idea.

Will Hamas stop if Isreal does?

If Israel stops its apartheid and ethnic cleansing? Certainly.

Amazing. Depressing, but amazing.

Meanwhile FiniteBanjo laughing at us from the good place:

So then what’s that case supposed to be?

car makers just jack up their prices so they make more off the subsidy

Exactly.

And then you remember that the pen was actually the former’s and the latter stole it.

Really we should be subsidizing EVs from our own manufacturers.

You are. Still not doing much to corporate greed.

This would be slightly more believable if Rabin wasn’t assassinated and Netanyahu didn’t basically tear up the Oslo accords.

Yeah fair enough.

Do I really need to explain the similarity between Hamas and the IRA?

Let me just tell you, you’d have been on the wrong side of history during the Troubles.

Now that aside, if you think there’s only one terrorist organization involved in the current war you need to rethink, well, everything about the conflict, because everything Hamas does Israel does times 10 to 100.

I don’t agree with “while isolated rapes may have taken place, there was insufficient evidence to support allegations that rape had been ‘widespread and systematic’.”

I mean it turned that that there was no widespread and systematic rape no?

Uh… That’s not how bias works.

They are the remnants of BBC Middle East,

Remnants? What happened to them?

I mean they’re not gonna say bad shit about Qatar, but other than that they’re pretty good.

I mean whether God exists aside, if you’re buying Jews’ (especially Zionist Jews’) God’s chosen people spiel you have your own problems.

They don’t need to say it (mostly because nobody is asking that question). Two questions that were asked is “Is the number of deaths in Gaza justified by the war” and “do you think Israel is using adequate or too little force in Gaza”. And apparently 88% of Israeli jews think the answer is yes for the former, and 94% think so for the latter. Similarly, only 27% of Israeli Jews support a two-state solution, while 38% think Israel should annex the West Bank with limited Palestinian rights (admittedly I thought this one would be higher).

https://archive.is/PWZ1h

I mean I’m quoting numbers from two weeks ago. I’d love to think that the number of people who support genocide in Israel is less than that, but you can’t argue with evidence.

Man genocide and forced migration had been the Zionist plan since 1917, and if you let something like a genocide get you behind schedule you won’t get any settler colonialism done.

They’ve been protesting against him because he violated their security and democracy, not because he’s committing genocide. 80% of them (including 88% of Jewish Israelis) are perfectly fine with that part.

Alright, but do you see this playing out positively for them longer term?

Israel hasn’t been thinking of the longer term at least ever since Palestinians got internet access. That was the beginning of the end for their control over Western public opinion, (edit) and you’d have expected them to learn but nope.

Also I think there are probably going to be bad consequences internally assuming a non-insignificant part of the Israelis come to terms with the atrocity committed in their name.

Don’t expect too much. To most Jewish Israelis (which are, let’s face it, the only ones that matter) Palestinians are subhuman barbarians whose only purpose in life is to be killed for Lebensraum. And their share of the total population is going up, not down. So yeah, don’t expect any soul searching in that department.

Most people who were keeping up with the conflict knew this would happen. Glad to see more people waking up, but the current state of Gaza isn’t in any way surprising.

Their purpose in Gaza is to terrorize the civilian population.

Make that remove/kill/starve.

Ramping pressure over time is/was the best available strategy.

I don’t see it working. Pressure only matters when there’s real leverage at play, otherwise you get the current mess.

Iran and Israel can not be maintained in the same sphere of influence without copious amounts of hard and soft power that only the US and maybe China possess. So the Russia route is out unless they wanna lose Iran and they probably don’t want that. China is more viable, but the thing is: China wants the Middle East on its side. They’ve been posturing for that for a while now. Taking in Israel would destroy all that in a second.

Honestly no. Bad representation is worse than no representation. This is an extreme example, but just look at Muslim representation in Western media. I mean just take the extremist terrorist Muslim, or the idea that Muslim women are oppressed and need to be “liberated” from their hijab.

Again this is an extreme example but this is what bad representation is; it reduces a group of people into a few stereotypical character traits. As a Muslim I’d rather Islam not be represented at all if this is what that representation will be.

Plus there is still an issue of Hamas.

Say what you want about Hamas but they’re much better than the IDF.

The thing is: You need young people to support old people. This is irrespective of economic model; an upside down pyramid just isn’t a sustainable demographical situation. This could change as automation gets better, but for now both UBI and increasing birth rates are necessary. You can see this now in Japan needing foreign workers because there are more jobs that need to be done than people.

You want 1917 and yes, at least in the Middle East anti-Semitism soared after that.

Peace treaties are just a nicer name for one side surrendering.

You’re either being willfully obtuse or have zero knowledge of history. Either way you’re using a very convenient definition of surrendering. If you interpret the aggressor pulling out as surrendering then yeah a lot of wars will end in one surrender or another, but that’s not how that works.

What about the winter war?

Uh… Neither? Usually peace is preferable in cases like this. So from that perspective it’s Israel and its far-right government that has sworn against a Palestinian state multiple times that should back down, but nobody needs to surrender to anyone.

Gaza has been attacking Israel for it’s entire existence, and far worse since Hamas took over 15 years ago.

Israel has been attacking Gaza for about the same period of time too. Occupations are an act of war.

Yeah. That’s the challenge in situations like these: How do you get to a free-floating currency without the people starving to death.

TBF there’s a reason for the devaluation. In countries like Argentina the government sets the price of the dollar, but that doesn’t affect the real price, so in the end the government pays the difference. In the case of Argentina the government basically made the dollar half its real value, so say for every 100 dollars an Argentinian bought the government needed to pay 50.

It’s a bad situation all around and there are no good solutions, but just leaving it be is unsustainable.

Israel call themselves/are called by their supporters both of these things.

Me and the boys when most moral army in the world/only democracy in the middle East.

Israel is standing in solidarity with Palestine and other middle Eastern dictatorships by becoming one themselves.

I mean it makes sense to want them to do more but calling it nothing is a little overblown. See: The horribly named inflation reduction act.

To be fair it must be remembered that the Taliban had (and still have) some of the best PR out there since they were fighting a foreign invader. That tends to make you popular.

There are no real signs of any will to resistance, so what else are we to make of that besides this is the way the majority wants it?

I agree with your general point, but isn’t there resistance in the northern parts of Afghanistan? Also there’s the part where the US gave the Taliban some of the best PR out there. Fighting against a foreign invader tends to make you pretty popular irrespective of your stance on other things.