• NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

    • Lauchs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      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?

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Always does not mean “since I started paying attention” but regardless…

        Huh? Are we even talking about the same conflict? This has been the case since 2005 when Israel disengaged from Gaza.

        why do you think the violence has been at such a lower level than Gaza since the rapes and murders of Oct 7th?

        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.

        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.”

        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.

        • Lauchs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          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.

          but that aside he might’ve felt emboldened to say it out loud,

          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.

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            whereas a Harris Biden administration was at the very least basically keeping the status quo intact.

            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.

            • Lauchs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              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.

              the only difference between what they’re trying to do and the status quo is what things are names.

              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.

              • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                “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.”

                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.

                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.

                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.

                It’s as dumb as arguing that climate change would be the same under either President because you don’t think things will change.

                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.

                • Lauchs@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  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.

                  • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 days ago

                    “Sure, things will be different but then if you assume things won’t change then they’re the same.”

                    I mean you’re the one who said “this is as dumb as saying things won’t change because I think won’t change”.