Palestine is actually an interesting A/B test: you have Gaza, that is resisting, and West Bank, that is collaborating, and you can compare the results:
Gaza is being subjected to periodical flare-ups of genocide, causing much consternation in the world media, and despite the world governments largely continuing to back Israel, the sheer mask-off nature of the violence seems to have caused the public opinion to shift.
West Bank is being subjected to constant low level ethnic cleansing, disposession, and removal. There are occasional pogroms, but overall it’s been quiet and ignorable. Consequently, most people forget they even exist, and those that do can get away with “hoping for peace”, thoughts-and-prayers style, as the removal continues.
I wasn’t suggesting anything, I was asking what the numbers are like. I think how many people will die as a result of each policy is something that probably does make sense to consider.
I’m sorry, it’s hard to tell if someone is sincere or Just Asking Questions. In this case, the options are a slow genocide (West Bank) or a fast genocide (Gaza), so the short term numbers alone paint a misleading picture of the relative merits of each strategy. Israel’s gonna remove the brown people either way.
I’d just be interested to see how over time if those two numbers differ. If there’s a big difference then that’d of course weigh on the considerations. If they’re close to each other, then that’d also affect it. I just found population estimates and death estimates for current Gaza conflict but not really a good comparison for the two.
Sure, the slow genocide will be slower of course. It’s hardly worth bothering to google something that obvious. Still genocide though. Israelis are using violence to kill and/or displace Palestinian residents of the West Bank. They’ll take it all, eventually.
If it is way slower or much less deadly in the short/moderate time, then it’s not hard to see why some would prefer that. Death now or death maybe somewhere in the future.
Palestine is actually an interesting A/B test: you have Gaza, that is resisting, and West Bank, that is collaborating, and you can compare the results:
Gaza is being subjected to periodical flare-ups of genocide, causing much consternation in the world media, and despite the world governments largely continuing to back Israel, the sheer mask-off nature of the violence seems to have caused the public opinion to shift.
West Bank is being subjected to constant low level ethnic cleansing, disposession, and removal. There are occasional pogroms, but overall it’s been quiet and ignorable. Consequently, most people forget they even exist, and those that do can get away with “hoping for peace”, thoughts-and-prayers style, as the removal continues.
You be the judge.
How have the deaths been, comparing the two?
Is your suggestion to let the Israelis take your land more slowly, so they don’t kill as many of your children?
By the way, 60,000 of them are Americans.
I wasn’t suggesting anything, I was asking what the numbers are like. I think how many people will die as a result of each policy is something that probably does make sense to consider.
I’m sorry, it’s hard to tell if someone is sincere or Just Asking Questions. In this case, the options are a slow genocide (West Bank) or a fast genocide (Gaza), so the short term numbers alone paint a misleading picture of the relative merits of each strategy. Israel’s gonna remove the brown people either way.
I’d just be interested to see how over time if those two numbers differ. If there’s a big difference then that’d of course weigh on the considerations. If they’re close to each other, then that’d also affect it. I just found population estimates and death estimates for current Gaza conflict but not really a good comparison for the two.
Sure, the slow genocide will be slower of course. It’s hardly worth bothering to google something that obvious. Still genocide though. Israelis are using violence to kill and/or displace Palestinian residents of the West Bank. They’ll take it all, eventually.
If it is way slower or much less deadly in the short/moderate time, then it’s not hard to see why some would prefer that. Death now or death maybe somewhere in the future.