eeeeeeeeergh

i get your point but a pragmatic solution means someone needs to compromise what do palestinians have left to compromise with? they have nothing left to give. theyve lost their land, and more of the west bank is being settled everyday. They have nothing that Israel wants, other than to "stop fighting". Its not like the palestinians are sitting on any bargaining chips they can trade with. So the pragmatic solution/compromise is probably something like: ceasefire in exchange for a week of peace talks, and ceasefire continues if theres a settlement freeze and complete non-military goods are allowed to be imported into gaza. the sad thing is - hamas knew exactly how israel was going to respond, and its going to be a massive disproportionate response. Israel is probably going to carpet bomb the living daylights out of Gaza and accelerate even more settlements. My guess is Hamas is banking on the response sparking some moral outrage from the rest of the world which might force Israel back to the table. Either way, a lot of people are going to die

anyway i said id stop talkingabout this like an hour ago, now i actually will cause this makes me really sad. back to hockey and the shrine of loui eriksson *mutes thread*

I think it works here with some mutually assured destruction elements. Palestine would have to have a collective defence agreement with the other arab countries. Its not perfect but there will never be an armed palestinian state, the amount of land in question is simply too small. An armed palestinian state would represent an existential threat to Israel.

This is the thing I hear alot of "both sides are at fault" Personally, I don't feel like both the colonial settlers in Canada and the indigenous peoples were "both at fault" Its pretty clear to me that the colonial settlers were entirely at fault, and having spent time in Palestine, the issue looks exactly the same to me.

The other part of this that I really struggle with is - I've been to the west bank, and ive been to tel aviv. I see the difference, and I've talked to so many people "on both sides". Basically 99% of Palestinians and Israelis just want to have their homes, raise their kids, and survive everyday without a threat of violence. The reason this is fairly one sided for me is - only one side has been removed from their homes and forced to live under occupation. By and large, Israeli life is exactly how it is in any other western city - its safe, its nice, theres good schools, lots of job opportunities. If you look at the number of civilian casualties in the conflict, its like 10:1 Palestinian to Israeli. I don't think that apartheid in South Africa was a "two sided issue" with good arguments for both sides. What I witnessed in Hebron was the definition of Apartheid. There were roads Palestinians were allowed to walk, and roads that only settlers were allowed on.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument that justifies the removal of Palestinians from their homes to make way for settlers from North America and Europe. Until I hear that, I personally dont feel like theres a whole lot of "two sidedness" to the issue. Despite that, I dont believe in punishing the son for the sins of the father, so I also don't believe that jewish people born in Israel should be held accountable for what was done 70-80 years ago. Which is why in the end, I believe in a 2 state solution. Israel, a demilitarized Palestine, and shared sovereignty over East Jerusalem.

Wildly, we were on track for it to happen while the Israeli Democratic Party was in power. Once Likud took over the outcome became entirely unrealistic. People forget that Likud was formed by Menachem Begin who was the leader of Irgun, the paramilitary group that was depopulating palestinian villages. Likud has no interest in a two state solution, or peace. The reason they've pushed more settlements, is Likud is ideologically bent on pushing palestinians back into Jordan and Syria. I hope at some point the Israeli people come to their senses and bring back the moderates who have some sympathy for the people living under occupation and blockade. Its really not a complicated situation at all, this is the big myth. People want to believe its complicated, because the simplicity of it puts any logical person in direct disagreement with the political leadership of north american and western europe. Land was forcibly taken from a group of people and given to others, more and more of that land is getting stripped away. The solution is pretty simple - stop stripping away the land, show some interest in peace, let Gazans import enough food to eat, show goodwill like helping Palestinians get jobs, get them some free access to online universities (50% unemployment in Gaza right now). You'll be amazed at how quickly support for Hamas goes away, just like the Palestinian people stopped supporting Arafats violence when Israel extended an olive branch.

my wife is jewish, ive been to tel aviv twice im well versed on both sides, thanks

yeah this is kinda what i thought people who are ok with the way the israeli state was initially formed believe that it was justified to depopulate the local palestinians because of the religious significance of the land "yes you live there now, but its mine because my holy book says i should have it"

i mean youre just wrong about all of this but i cant convince someone who's written their own version of history. This is how people were removed from their homes to make room for Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre Shame on you but w/e im back to hockey.

I'm gonna stop talking on this issue right now because it makes my blood boil. I much rather shitpost and simp for Loui Eriksson. I'll close on this note - if you're never been to Palestine, or don't have family/friends there, you owe it to yourself to properly research the entire history of the region before just echoing the political leaders of today. These are the same political leaders who told us that Iraq had WMDs and therefore a war that would ultimately result in a million deaths was justified. They're liars who say whatever is politically expedient. Just hop on youtube and watch 5-10 videos from historians on the origins of the conflict, try to find out why Palestinians are without homes today, watch some videos on what its like living in a city under occupation and then form an opinion.

So you're just rewriting history then? The right of return for palestinian refugees, and sovereignty over holy sites were 2 of several points that Barak did not compromise on. If your version of history is true - then why did Arafat renounce terrorism and the PLO officially acknowledge Israel's right to exist? So Israel removes some settlements from Gaza, then depopulates parts of the West Bank and builds more settlements there- and youre surprised that didn't assuage the grievances felt by the Palestinians?

How can this end? Its pretty fucking obvious. Remove the illegal settlements in the west bank and let people in Gaza import enough livestock and food to live. How tf do people think this is an intractable conflict thats been going on forever, when Hamas is basically a brand new organization. Hamas didn't exist in the 1990s, The PLO was the palestinian terrorist organization of the day, and renounced violence because it had a partner in peace in Ehud Barak (Israeli PM at the time) who was actually sympathetic to the fact that Palestinians were depopulated to make way for the state of israel.

Some examples of things that have been blockaded for your reference: "jam, candles, books, musical instruments, shampoo, A4 paper, and livestock such as chicken, donkeys, and cows" Also pretty clear you don't wanna talk about the illegal settlements in the west bank & eviction of palestinians from their homes which is the only reason Hamas exists in the first place. The occupation I'm talking about is the occupation of the west bank which is loaded with checkpoints and roadblocks, and in hebron in particular, there were roads that palestinians were not allowed to walk down (only israeli settlers). a little history lesson for you - the PLO put down its weapons and picked the diplomatic route when Israel had a government that wasn't bent on cleansing the territories of all Palestinians and replacing them with settlers. Again violence against civilians is always wrong. But Israel is far from the victim in the broader conflict when you consider the fact that millions of palestinians were cleansed from their homes to pave the way for europeans and north americans to settle there.

Nice, so Gaza has been under naval and land blockade since 2007 and the west bank has been occupied by IDF forces and colonized by settlers every year for the past decade. Source? I was in hebron last year. nice try though.

Its not just recent policies, its the IDF killing palestinian children, its settlers getting military backup from the IDF to kill and evict palestinian residents from their homes, its the result of a population being cleansed from their homes and being blockaded to the point of extreme poverty. People way overcomplicate this issue. A group of people were forcibly evicted from their homes, and they're now living under occupation/apartheid. They tried the peaceful/diplomatic approach in the 2000s and it accomplished nothing. They're angry and retaliating. No it does not justify killing civilians. But people and the media portray it as unexplainable violence by primitives with no justification other than a desire for bloodshed which is bloody wrong.

Time to put a claim in on Bjork Guy is exactly what the doctor ordered

exactly need to hire some scouts to start searching the globe

@The Duke heres another potentially gamechanging idea for you a nhl net is 6 feet wide x 4 feet tall there has to be at least one guy in the world whose proportions match that what if we find that guy, and just park him in front of the net. 0 open net to shoot into. would have 82 shutouts per season and a clean sweep of all playoff games if we can find that guy.

thats the great thing about Bear, he can play on the 3rd pair as the puck mover, or up the lineup with hughes too. really hope we get him back.

i honestly think we just need Bear to be back healthy, i really liked him as QHs partner it puts everyone else back in their strength zone, and Bear would cost us very little in cap relative to what he brings

in all seriousness there actually is something powerful psychologically about the kind of stuff that Gillis did these little things that give your team a "secret edge" make them believe they have an edge, creates belief that they're destined to win and whatnot, so they play like it

we need some outside-of-the-box thinking, feel very strongly like we've fallen behind

ive been advocating to build a roster entirely made up of sub 5ft tall players lower the teams collective center of gravity itd be like rolling literal bowling balls down the rink teams would have no clue how to handle this

actually could really see cole-myers working as a shutdown pair