Agree completely. However, that's not feasible today. If it was over a century ago or even in the 1930s/1940s then maybe Israel could have easily done that and wiped them out and push the rest to other countries and occupy/take over the place like Russia did with Crimea. Nobody would have cared much, stuff like that used to happen alot back during those centuries. However, things are different today with social media, UN organisations, modern and globalised/interconnected world etc. Such actions would be frown upon by everyone and the news and events will be quickly spread around the world and thus generate a vicious reaction.
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and other Related Conflicts in the Middle East (read the rules in the first post)
- Thread starter phrozenflame
- Start date
Everyone has to far in line with Netanyahu endless war, anyone who disagree is blacklisted and harassed into submission.
Russia killed only 2 people in Crimea.
Nice joke. All that has already happened and we know Israel doesn't give a shit about it. The only thing preventing a complete ethnic cleansing atm is Egypt refusing to fully open it's borders. Thus, Palestinians have no chance but to stand. It's either stand or die, not stand or run like in Ukraine or any other conflict where people can choose to escape somewhere else.
Ukraine was a special case where more people ran away than other conflicts. In less than one year, some 8 million people fled the country (19% of the population). For comparison, in the Afghan War, less than 3 million Afghans (7% of the population) fled the country over 20 years, while some 5-8 million returned from previous wars. Ukr don't wanna stand.
Even though the Chinese Army suffered more combat losses, the Chinese Army did break through, and the road to Hanoi was wide open.
The Chinese Army could have made it to Hanoi, if they had chosen to. But remember the objective was never to conquer Vietnam.
At that point, the Vietnamese panicked and airlifted elite troops from Cambodia to face the Chinese Army.
Note that during this time, the Vietnamese were screaming for help from their Soviet "alliance", but the Soviets were unwilling and unable to help much.
The point being made, the Chinese (mostly) withdrew.
But for the following 10 years, the Chinese Army still occupied part of Vietnam's territory and would rotate Army units in for live-combat training against the Vietnamese Army.
So the Vietnamese learned the lesson that they couldn't rely on the Soviets.
China moved firmly into the anti-Soviet camp and a quasi-alliance with the US and the rest of the "West"
Economic benefits followed.
The Vietnamese were forced to maintain a huge standing army to at least try and match the Chinese Army
It meant Vietnam was even more militarised than the Soviets, never mind the Chinese.
Yet the Chinese Army never really worried too much about the Vietnamese Army and only deployed a modest force on the Vietnamese border, because everyone knew that statistically, Vietnam was comparable to one of the smaller and poorer Chinese provinces.
Vietnamese was forced into economic isolation and a cold war arms race with China, which it lost.
So you could argue that it was a strategic success for China.
It was always supposed to be a short victorious war, but the big issue is that the Chinese Army suffered heavier casualties than expected.
I would add that the entire world is becoming more anti-US as time goes on.
The latest is the UN vote on the USA sanctions on Cuba, which have been there for 50+ years out of sheer vindictiveness.
Here we an example where it is literally [US+Israel] against the Rest of the World
Even the Europeans can't get on board with US sanctions on Cuba. BBC Article below
Last edited:
Countries like Israel and US wouldn't exist to begin with if they didn't killing civilians.