all of them better than what they were replaced with

or supposed to be replaced with, assad controlled syria is having beach parties in latakia

gaddafi libya was the most advanced nation in africa, now you got open air slave markets, endless civil war and europe overrun by illegals

saddam was replaced with endless war and a power vaccum resulting in ISIS

good stuff lmao, truly a success

all three countries have in common that it all resulted in massive moves of migrants to the EU......i wonder who is interested in that

now the US and israel are trying to get the palestinians into europe too, what could possibly go wrong

I am describing my own response as pedantic. This one --> "Palestine is not a nation"
It's pedantic because in this context its largely semantics.

I do have empathy for both. I do believe though that Hamas instigated the current war and they still have hostages.
Anyone pushing last that I can't take seriously.
There is not a justification for what Hamas did. Anyone who believes there is, is a problem.

There was broad support to rescue hostages by military means but they have largely failed at that.
That was one of the stated aims.
The other was physically dismantling Hamas infrastructure. That will have been accomplished but at great cost and suffering to ordinary Palestinians.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Apr 1 2024 03:36pm

But do you think irrespective of whether 10/7 can ever be justified, that the Palestinians have legitimate claims to land and liberty?

Who said it was a success?

Assad, Saddam and Gaddadi had at least one thing in common. They would murder hundreds of thousands of fellow muslims for their own benefit.

If you truly believe Saddam was the best possible option, then you don't truly know how abhorrent he and his regime was.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Apr 1 2024 03:44pm

Very plainly, liberty of course.
By land what do you mean more specifically?

Palestinians broadly support Hamas and anyone that supports such a group immediately forfeit their legitimacy.

Land being the most-recently recognized borders, and the complete removal of all Israeli settlements beyond those borders.

well said.



good luck with that conversation.

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 1 2024 04:01pm

Empathetically yes. Realisticly, how?

It's very difficult and it's where I think the two state solution falls down. Any border will be subject to dispute and a cause of tension.

If they both wished to live peacefully around each other that would not require the removal of anyone. It is a choice.

Also there is the aspect of whether a single Palestinian entity has the mandate to govern and represent a majority.
The PLO does not have a monopoly on violence amongst Palestinians.
Therefore they can't actually maintain any kind of functioning state or even border.

On the contrary his anti west omnipotent US rant is garbage.

The fact you applause it speaks volumes.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Apr 1 2024 04:09pm

I agree that it would be a choice. It seems that there are people, Israeli and Palestinian, who would never make that choice. Unfortunately, those people are also disproportionately in current power.