Israel tells Gazans to move south or risk being seen as 'terrorist' partner

المنطقة عكف عفريت@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.world – 293 points –
Israel tells Gazans to move south or risk being seen as 'terrorist' partner
reuters.com
89

You are viewing a single comment

I am getting the feeling that Israel (aka US) is creating more terrorists on purpose. If my entire family was killed and I survived I would be out for blood. I think anyone would.

Is this done just an excuse for the US to re-insert itself in a middle eastern conflict so our tax dollars can enrich the military industrial complex? Sure seems like it

We created our enemies in the Middle East, they would have no reason to hate us if we didn't.

Hamas was created by Israel in the first place so you’re not wrong at all

Not to mention the CIAs involvement in the formation of Al-Qaeda

These wars are not protecting America They are making us more vulnerable

What we do is not defense, it is conquest.

You can win wars, but you cannot win an occupation.

But the people selling the guns sure as hell win.

Setting aside the US for a moment, I think Israel’s embattled condition has always helped the Zionist cause. Being in a state of crisis binds the Israeli people together and draws foreign aid. There’s also a draw for Jewish people around the world to go defend the homeland. All of this draws in people and money to Israel. And of course it creates the martial conditions for them to forcibly exclude millions of Arabs from their “democracy.” If Israel had been peaceably founded and there was no separation with Gaza / the West Bank then Israel likely would have stopped being a Jewish majority, Jewish controlled state long ago. Now that their society is affluent and developed, they’re having a harder time keeping up on birth rates too. You can get people to have 8 kids on a farming kibbutz. Gen-Z ravers with tech jobs? Not so much.

It's nothing so complicated as all that.

It's as simple as any possible solution to the issue is to Israels disadvantage, so they work to maintain the status quo.

Not sure why we need a reason, or to keep up a front.

No one looks at the war and says, "i really think itd be swell if the US got involved"

If its about momey or whatever, i feel like the people in power could just... invade? No need for fronts?

It's not just about money, it's also about approval raitings. Out of control and bizarre as it all feels, the individual politicians involved have to continually keep their supporters scared and seeking violent action (and therefore voting for them) or else a sane person might get elected and stop shoveling money into the war-engine.

I mean, when every single politician is a war monger, i still dont see what the point is. When the alternative is It'll-Be-Gone-By-Easter Trump, as they as they accept that science is a thing, any politician is fine. Their stance on the war is now completely irrelevant.

That is the point, maintaining a status quo of "all politicians are war mongers". They don't want to let any non-war mongers into the club.

I'm stoned, and no simple explanation will be accurate.

But it basically works like this.

Invade -> Resources?

Yes -> take if non renewable. Banana Republic if renewable. Create enemies.

No -> create enemies.

Stir up tension with enemies neighbors and enemies.

Sell arms to one/both.

Play hero by putting a stop to this militant terrorist communist et ceteras.

Profit.

Summary

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Summary

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.