this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
285 points (96.4% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
3460 readers
207 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Israel have been aggressively expanding in the West Bank since October 7, and intensified their campaign at around the same time they started the war with Lebanon. There are no red lines.
What new settlements happened thete in the last year? You are conflating an increase in tensions and conflict with expansion.
Uh.... Here you go.
From the article:
Now, I'm no mathematician but surely you understand that's orders of magnitude fewer than have been displaced in Gaza, right? Please?
Yes, because violence in the West Bank has always been lower-level than the violence in Gaza. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make is.
Always does not mean "since I started paying attention" but regardless...
Anyway, you're so close! Let's tey the socratic method, given that the West Bank has been an Israeli target for years, why do you think the violence has been at such a lower level than Gaza since the rapes and murders of Oct 7th?
And why did that coincidentally change days after the election, with Smoterich now directing "the start of professional work to prepare the necessary infrastructure to apply Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria."
If you're ruling out Biden etc, was it just a wild miracle of timing?
Huh? Are we even talking about the same conflict? This has been the case since 2005 when Israel disengaged from Gaza.
Uh... Because there's no resistance worth mentioning in the West Bank? They don't need to do much for their colonial project in the West Bank, but if settlers tried entering Gaza they'd just be shot.
It didn't change, but that aside he might've felt emboldened to say it out loud, but we still don't know if the rest of the Israeli government will allow that. In case they do anytime soon, the only conclusion would be that there were plans for such an action from before the election.
Look, if you understand the simmering West Bank conflict and slow annexation then it's even sillier to try and argue that trump and Harris mean the same thing for Palestinians, which was the entire point of the original comment.
Under trump, it looks like that project might finally get finished, whereas a Harris Biden administration was at the very least basically keeping the status quo intact.
Ideally, as tik tok has taught many progressives that Palestine exists and is worthy of care, you could see progressives voting (okay, but a man can dream) in the Democratic 2026 primaries and moving towards a 2 state solution. That is in now way realistic under a trump administration and once the annexation is finished, there isn't a going back.
Yeah, almost like it was something he wasn't able to say or pursue during a Biden administration. Of course there were plans but being able to act on them required trump to win.
Which is... not exactly something to be proud of since the only difference between what they're trying to do and the status quo is what things are names. It's not exactly a good thing, but also not the gotcha you think it is.
That's an impressively self centered privileged possible view.
"Sure, a lot of you are going to die but I think it would have happened either way so there's no difference between Harris and trump."
Especially when you factor in the Left's newfound support for Palestine and that there would presumably be support to push for changing the status quo, this somehow manages to be an even dumber take.
That's just nonsense. One is likely the end of the road for Palestineans in the West Bank, the other at least has chances for an alternative.
It's as dumb as arguing that climate change would be the same under either President because you don't think things will change.
Uh... Nobody's going to die because of this particular action. They're trying to annex settlements, which are basically already governed as Israeli territory. This is unrelated to the expansion of settlements, which is part of the status quo Harris wasn't going to change.
The left's newfound support that the Democratic establishment has been completely ignoring? There was no changing the status quo under Harris let's not kid ourselves.
These are literally the same statement. In this case the assumption isn't wrong, because while Harris would likely keep Biden's policies Trump is going to change a lot of things for the worse, but if you assume that things won't change under either administration then climate change would be the same under either president.
This might literally be one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
"Sure, things will be different but then if you assume things won't change then they're the same."
I feel dumber for having interacted with you, I'm done.
I mean you're the one who said "this is as dumb as saying things won't change because I think won't change".
I mean, I missed a word but that definitely made it more confusing (even if it was paraphrasing your point.)
Am I understanding your argument is that:
You feel Israel will eventually annex the West Bank so it doesn't matter whether Harris or trump won in 2024?
So first it's not the whole West Bank. If they did that they'd have to follow Israeli domestic law, which would give West Bank Palestinians rights and kind of defeat the point. Instead what Smotrich is pushing for is annexing some West Bank settlements. Now what I'm saying is that if his push for annexation succeeds then it was eventually going to happen (and by eventually I mean within these four years) because I just don't see Harris having enough backbone to stop it, and that even if he succeeds the only thing that changes is what the land the settlements are on is called because they're basically already governed as Israeli territory. The part where people are actually hurt—the expansion of settlements—is no different from before the election.
<(and by eventually I mean within these four years)
Yeah, I think that's pretty nonsensical.
Were that the case, there's no reason for Smotrich to wait until after the election to announce his actual intentions etc. Nor any reason for them to hold back until now. Your take requires some incredibly coincidental timing that I don't think just happened magically.
Like, I get your argument I just think it's more than a little silly but to each their own.
Cheers.
You are arguing with absolute liars. It's like people only thinking this mess accelerated under Biden (who is the most paid politician by AIPAC) is just a coincidence. As if Israel hasn't been expanding into some of the most important Palestinian cities while the world focuses on Gaza.
It's the same people who say what can Biden possibly do while funding their military operations. Trump sees the praise Biden is getting from Congress and actually thinks Biden must have been doing something right. Yet, somehow there was a good choice for people who want to see Palestine prosper (Those who pretend that Harris would do better because she doesn't shout her plans out like some cliché comic book villain).
But let's call Trump a huge liar and let's take his word at face value when it's convenient for us. I'm sure the Democrats who never learn a thing will be excited to lose the next election as well. Obviously, Trump won't be a good president but Democrats lost because they were seen as slightly less evil but with no charisma.