NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On November 16 2023 13:30 RenSC2 wrote: @Nebuchad I surely can see a difference between doing something necessary, but unfortunate, versus wanting to do something. They're wanting to kill the terrorist. They're not wanting to kill the hostage. However, the hostage is the price to pay for killing the terrorist. In the past, Israel has generally allowed the terrorist to use hostages to get away. However, Oct 7th changed that. They're willing to go after the terrorist even if that means some of the hostages die... in this case literally, not just the figurative hostages that are the Palestinians.
Again, this is you arguing that they're doing something intentionally, but you find it justifiable, this is not you arguing that they're not doing it intentionally.
On November 16 2023 13:30 RenSC2 wrote: @Nebuchad I surely can see a difference between doing something necessary, but unfortunate, versus wanting to do something. They're wanting to kill the terrorist. They're not wanting to kill the hostage. However, the hostage is the price to pay for killing the terrorist. In the past, Israel has generally allowed the terrorist to use hostages to get away. However, Oct 7th changed that. They're willing to go after the terrorist even if that means some of the hostages die... in this case literally, not just the figurative hostages that are the Palestinians.
Again, this is you arguing that they're doing something intentionally, but you find it justifiable, this is not you arguing that they're not doing it intentionally.
They're intentionally killing terrorists. They're unintentionally killing hostages in the process. Why is that hard to understand?
On November 16 2023 13:30 RenSC2 wrote: @Nebuchad I surely can see a difference between doing something necessary, but unfortunate, versus wanting to do something. They're wanting to kill the terrorist. They're not wanting to kill the hostage. However, the hostage is the price to pay for killing the terrorist. In the past, Israel has generally allowed the terrorist to use hostages to get away. However, Oct 7th changed that. They're willing to go after the terrorist even if that means some of the hostages die... in this case literally, not just the figurative hostages that are the Palestinians.
Again, this is you arguing that they're doing something intentionally, but you find it justifiable, this is not you arguing that they're not doing it intentionally.
They're intentionally killing terrorists. They're unintentionally killing hostages in the process. Why is that hard to understand?
Because it is not unintentional. You're arguing it's perhaps regrettable*, but it's inarguably intentional.
On November 16 2023 13:30 RenSC2 wrote: @Nebuchad I surely can see a difference between doing something necessary, but unfortunate, versus wanting to do something. They're wanting to kill the terrorist. They're not wanting to kill the hostage. However, the hostage is the price to pay for killing the terrorist. In the past, Israel has generally allowed the terrorist to use hostages to get away. However, Oct 7th changed that. They're willing to go after the terrorist even if that means some of the hostages die... in this case literally, not just the figurative hostages that are the Palestinians.
Again, this is you arguing that they're doing something intentionally, but you find it justifiable, this is not you arguing that they're not doing it intentionally.
They're intentionally killing terrorists. They're unintentionally killing hostages in the process. Why is that hard to understand?
What did they think was going to happen to the hostages?
On November 16 2023 13:30 RenSC2 wrote: @Nebuchad I surely can see a difference between doing something necessary, but unfortunate, versus wanting to do something. They're wanting to kill the terrorist. They're not wanting to kill the hostage. However, the hostage is the price to pay for killing the terrorist. In the past, Israel has generally allowed the terrorist to use hostages to get away. However, Oct 7th changed that. They're willing to go after the terrorist even if that means some of the hostages die... in this case literally, not just the figurative hostages that are the Palestinians.
"I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice" - MLK
A negative peace is no longer acceptable to the Israeli moderate. Israel is choosing justice, despite its costs.
@Salazarz As Mohdoo said, 100% kill rate on Hamas is not necessary. Israel administering the land should be the real goal. If they can get an international coalition to do it, so much the better. Gaza can no longer be an independent entity left to its own devices. It needs to be completely disarmed. I've suggested near Big Brother style control over Gaza. Hamas members can still hate Israel, but they can't hold a rocket or an AK47 ever again. If they so much as toss a rock at a soldier, they should be hauled off to jail.
It ain't great, but it's better than what exists now and can lead to future generations having a chance. Children can actually grow up in a peaceful place, get an education, and have a future.
As for my "just fucking stupid talk", there's a huge difference between me sitting in my cozy home next to neighbors that I get along with versus Israel being in the middle of a bunch of countries that want them wiped off the face of the map. I shouldn't be worried, but if I'm in Israel, I would be.
You actually think that killing five thousand kids and writing it off as 'collateral damage' is JUSTICE? Holy shit. Like, I don't even want to talk to you any more.
On November 16 2023 13:30 RenSC2 wrote: @Nebuchad I surely can see a difference between doing something necessary, but unfortunate, versus wanting to do something. They're wanting to kill the terrorist. They're not wanting to kill the hostage. However, the hostage is the price to pay for killing the terrorist. In the past, Israel has generally allowed the terrorist to use hostages to get away. However, Oct 7th changed that. They're willing to go after the terrorist even if that means some of the hostages die... in this case literally, not just the figurative hostages that are the Palestinians.
Again, this is you arguing that they're doing something intentionally, but you find it justifiable, this is not you arguing that they're not doing it intentionally.
They're intentionally killing terrorists. They're unintentionally killing hostages in the process. Why is that hard to understand?
Because it is not unintentional. You're arguing it's perhaps regrettable*, but it's inarguably intentional.
You’re saying you view the entire Israeli conflict with Gaza as focused only on killing Palestinians? If the goal is just to kill ‘em all, why not just kill them all? This is another example of you not giving a lot of detail and leaving it to other people to piece together what you mean.
What is intentional? What is Israel’s goal?
You’re quick to jump in to offer a condescending or vague opinion, but you’re not providing anything to engage with. It gives the impression you aren’t interested in a conversation and more so trying to throw tomatoes from the sidelines.
@Nebuchad I don't think they cared about the hostages or gave them much thought at all.
@Salazarz Killing Hamas is justice. Accepting the collateral damage is what happens when you've had enough and you just don't care about anything else anymore.
@Mohdoo You should ask him about how socialism will totally solve all the worlds problems if people just believe. Trust him bro.
On November 16 2023 13:30 RenSC2 wrote: @Nebuchad I surely can see a difference between doing something necessary, but unfortunate, versus wanting to do something. They're wanting to kill the terrorist. They're not wanting to kill the hostage. However, the hostage is the price to pay for killing the terrorist. In the past, Israel has generally allowed the terrorist to use hostages to get away. However, Oct 7th changed that. They're willing to go after the terrorist even if that means some of the hostages die... in this case literally, not just the figurative hostages that are the Palestinians.
Again, this is you arguing that they're doing something intentionally, but you find it justifiable, this is not you arguing that they're not doing it intentionally.
They're intentionally killing terrorists. They're unintentionally killing hostages in the process. Why is that hard to understand?
Because it is not unintentional. You're arguing it's perhaps regrettable*, but it's inarguably intentional.
You’re saying you view the entire Israeli conflict with Gaza as focused only on killing Palestinians? If the goal is just to kill ‘em all, why not just kill them all? This is another example of you not giving a lot of detail and leaving it to other people to piece together what you mean.
What is intentional? What is Israel’s goal?
You’re quick to jump in to offer a condescending or vague opinion, but you’re not providing anything to engage with. It gives the impression you aren’t interested in a conversation and more so trying to throw tomatoes from the sidelines.
Generally, Israel is intentionally waging an ethnic cleansing campaign terrorizing and massacring Palestinians. I don't think I've minced words about that. I also don't accept that because they could theoretically massacre even more Palestinians (without so much as the threat of international sanctions) it means they aren't terrorizing and massacring them now.
I don't think that was vague though. They are intentionally killing "hostages and terrorists" and according to their math it's worth it.
On November 16 2023 08:17 Falling wrote: Well, fortunately this eventuality has already been covered in International Humanitarian Law.
"Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy."
Hospitals are immune. Hospitals lose their immunity if they are used to commit harmful acts to the enemy, like for instance if they are used as combatant headquarters (or, I imagine, holding of hostages). It doesn't mean Israel should as a result just flatten the hospital with a bomb (which they did not do.) But it does mean they are operating within the bounds of international law to seize and control the hospital. My guess is the IDF will want the hospital to keep running as a hospital, but we'll see.
lol jesus christ. I did not realize this is already well-established within the whole war law system. Am I to then assume the people screeching about war crimes are also saying Hamas is not operating out of hospitals? Good grief, its worse than I thought.
Thought it was worth going back to note that IHL law is indeed well-established on immunity of hospitals, and you’re mostly misunderstanding it. In particular it requires giving a warning to non-combatants and reasonable time to evacuate; the IDF has frequently either given less than 24 hours notice, or else just shelled it with no warning at all, and tried to pretend they didn’t.
On November 16 2023 10:09 Nebuchad wrote: This conversation is probably the closest I've been to thinking the world is a simulation because literally every three days it just resets and you guys loop back to talking about self-defense and none of the mountain of evidence that shows Israel isn't engaged in an act of self-defense ever gets addressed in any way.
I can't lie a part of me really thought that John Oliver would get through, he usually does.
You're right I should not have posted. The comment about the mountain of evidence is quite ironic.
As to John Oliver I don't get my foreign policy views from a comedian. He's no more of an expert on this conflict than me (not at all).
Ive watched a lot of stuff with him recently and it seems like his takes are/sound pretty convincing.
also: Whoever here is using IDFs Videos as proof of anything is out of his mind. Have you seen the types of videos they make? It is blatant propaganda if u ask me. As is Hamas stuff..
And I agree with Nebuchad.. it is truly annoying how it is always the same and no one changes his opinions.
Im not trusting hear - say, Im not trusting opinions, and Im not trusting either side (IDF,Israel, Hamas)
So what is left is listening to experts. I mean even trusting Videos these days is boarderline impossible with the technology we have. I dont know if you realize this.. like for real.. almost anything can be staged/faked..
that being said.. I doubt deep fakes really existed back then .. / this isnt faked.. so if we can agree on that..
What is your stance on this for the "PRO ISRAEL, we aint doing nothing wrong crowd and only Hamas is to blame for everything that has happened and is currently happening in Gaza ect.." on this? (JimmiC, RvB, and a few others)
Nice straw man. I've called out the settlements as a massive failure just a page before your comment. I'm not going to respond to a YouTube video. If you have a question or want to know where I think Israel displays unacceptable behaviour I will respond.
The comparison of Hamas to Nazi Germany doesn't work. Hamas and Nazis are similar in intent, otherwise there aren't many parallels. The Nazis successfully annexed/invaded several nations and were actively continuing their conquest through Europe. In Germany there lived millions of Jewish people and political enemies of the Nazis, which the Nazis rounded up and put into concentration camps, eventually killing most of them. This atrocity resulted in one of the biggest migration waves in human history. Hamas did not successfully annex/invade any nations. They do not have the means to conquer any countries. In Gaza there do not exist many or even any Jewish people, as the population is almost exclusively Palestinian.
Please stop comparing Hamas to the Nazis. The Nazis needed to be fought on Germany's soil, but this is not the case with Hamas.
On November 16 2023 12:00 RenSC2 wrote: @Salazarz "Reprisals" - an act of retaliation. Yes, Israel has been retaliating since their founding. They have been under repeated attack since 1948. You are wrong about its effectiveness. It has indeed been effective since Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia are no longer directly attacking them.
And yes, a faction of assholes is now in charge of Israel, although the link to Hamas is completely overplayed. They benefit politically, yes, but that is far from helping Hamas. The best John Oliver came up with is that they didn't stop cars of money from reaching Hamas.
And just like you blame Israel's actions on radicalizing Hamas, I'd say Hamas's actions (and their precursors) have radicalized more and more Israelis. If there was even a year where Palestinians weren't trying to cause mass deaths in Israel, we might see a more peaceful government in Israel.
Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, or Saudi Arabia aren't occupied and being colonized by Israel. It's straight up idiotic to claim that it's in any way similar to what is happening in Gaza / West Bank.
Of course Hamas' actions are radicalizing Israelis, nobody is claiming otherwise. But Israel holds all the cards to ending this conflict. It's ridiculous to expect an extremist, fundamentalist terrorist organization to suddenly take the moral high ground -- it's just not going to happen, no matter how awesome it would be if it did. Like, I'm all for Hamas laying down arms and taking up gardening instead, it would be totally great. But it's not going to happen, at least not until Israel fucks off from the settlements and lets Palestinians to actually have a place to live without fear of being bombed or chased out of.
Israelis aren't worried that tomorrow they might not have a home to come back to, but that's the reality for most Palestinians. It's an entirely asymmetrical conflict and having the same standard for both sides is not only silly, but also unproductive at all. There is no way this conflict will end without Israel actually seeking a peaceful solution regardless of what Hamas is doing; the only way to get rid of Hamas is to show Palestinians that they can live better without them; and Israel is unwilling to do that, so damn right I blame Israel just as much as I blame Hamas for the death and destruction that is going on.
Iran is perpetually close to building a nuclear weapon. If they ever are allowed to complete it, it could find its way into Hamas's hands. Same with chemical weapons, Iraq still had stocks of it when the US invaded. Who knows how much of it went missing.
Power is very transitory. No, it isn't guaranteed that any Israeli will have a home to come back to tomorrow. Even if it's not something massive, an unlucky rocket hit (which have been fired every year from Palestine since 2001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel) can kill any Israeli at any time or just destroy their home.
You are right that it's ridiculous to expect Hamas to suddenly take the moral high ground. That's why they need to be eliminated. Without Hamas, Israel has a chance of listening to their better angels. Hamas needs all of their power removed. Sure, you'll never get all of their members, but if those members can't get their hands on an assault rifle, let alone rockets and mortars, then they're effectively defanged and peace can begin. Until that happens, the rocket attacks will never stop and Israel will feel justified in squeezing Palestine even harder.
That's why this ground assault had to happen. You can soften up Hamas through bombing, but never remove its power (unless you actually go for a genocide, which no sane person wants). To actually remove their power, you'd have to go in and take it away directly. It is probably the only chance of finding peace.
Iran wants to protect their continued existence. The US has already overthrown their government once and later repeatedly threatened them with invasion and death. Anyone in the position of Iran would desire a Nuke because its the only way to protect yourself from a US invasion.
And no I don't think if Iran had a nuke that it would find its way to any terrorist organization. If we accept that Iran's #1 concern is to keep existing then a terrorist organisation using a nuke that gets traced back to Iran is the must sure fire way to ensure that Iran stops existing shortly after.
As for Israel bombing and the ground assault. Israel wanting to weaken or 'destroy' Hamas isn't the problem. The amount of civilian casualties and suffering they are inflicting is.
If Israel had launched a precision ground operation aimed at maximizing damage to Hamas and its command structure while limiting civilian impact wherever possible instead of launching a month long bombing campaign this discussion wouldn't be nearly as contentious.
This will be the second chance for Netanjahu to prove that he cares about the safety of the hostages more than about turning Gaza into rubble. It would be the first step in proving that he's driven by kindness and not hatred. Fingers crossed.
@rvb I do not remember everything you ever wrote in this topic a could you stop this whiny attitude?
You won't respond to a YouTube video. Point taken. I wouldn't respond to things that contradict my view too.
After all one would have to consider the possibility to be wrong on certain points.
A bit bewildering not a single person has so far responded to my question about Norman G. Finkelstein and if he is a serious scholar.
I watched him countless times and read varies books he wrote.
I know this will sound arrogant and like a ad hominem round house kick but I have the feeling even though I didn't literally study this stuff or look at it 24/7 I engaged with serious sources a lot lore than most in here (I'm not taking about 4 minute YouTube videos here just to make that clear)..
Meanwhile I feel like basically all 'hardcore pro Israel' guys in here have arguments and styles of discussing this topic like they literally get their world view from main stream media, the idf (propaganda) itself or shady internet videos or stuff they read.
Have you looked into what relatively independent organizations say about this conflict?
Do you not trust them? If so why?
So I do not like ad hominems or arguments from authority (not implying I am one on this topic in particular) but I honestly feel like I'm taking to 3-4 people in particular who simply do not have enough unbiased knowledge about this topic. I am sorry but that is just how I feel at this point..
On November 16 2023 21:25 MaGic~PhiL wrote: @rvb I do not remember everything you ever wrote in this topic a could you stop this whiny attitude?
You don't have to read or remember them but then don't make statements that do not reflect my views like this:
"PRO ISRAEL, we aint doing nothing wrong crowd and only Hamas is to blame for everything that has happened and is currently happening in Gaza ect.." on this? (JimmiC, RvB, and a few others)
You won't respond to a YouTube video. Point taken. I wouldn't respond to things that contradict my view too.
After all one would have to consider the possibility to be wrong on certain points.
What a weird take. I've interacted with multiple people in the thread who have radically different views on the subject. E.g. Nebuchad and Salazarz. That's the purpose of a discussion forum. YouTube and other videos are not the type of medium I like to consume and so I don't.
A bit bewildering not a single person has so far responded to my question about Norman G. Finkelstein and if he is a serious scholar.
I watched him countless times and read varies books he wrote.
It's not that bewildering. I do not really know him. From the Wikipedia link you gave he seems insane. I don't know how else to describe this:
Finkelstein argues that one of Israel's primary motives for the 2008 offensive in Gaza was that Hamas was "signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border." He believes Hamas has joined the international community in "seeking a diplomatic settlement" and has called Hamas's stance toward Israel before the war a "peace offensive".
I know this will sound arrogant and like a ad hominem round house kick but I have the feeling even though I didn't literally study this stuff or look at it 24/7 I engaged with serious sources a lot lore than most in here (I'm not taking about 4 minute YouTube videos here just to make that clear)..
Meanwhile I feel like basically all 'hardcore pro Israel' guys in here have arguments and styles of discussing this topic like they literally get their world view from main stream media, the idf (propaganda) itself or shady internet videos or stuff they read.
Have you looked into what relatively independent organizations say about this conflict?
Do you not trust them? If so why?
I don't know what you consider independent. The media outlets I've followed the most for this conflict are The Economist, Times of Israel, BBC, Sky, CNN, NOS, RTL. Then I also read articles from The Guardian, The Times, WSJ, Haaretz, and the Financial Times. I'm sure I missed some but those are the most important ones. Every paper has their biases but I mostly trust these sources. The Economist is closest to my views on the subject. The Guardian, for instance, is much more left wing than me but I read it to get information from a different perspective. It's one of the reasons I also read this forum.
So I do not like ad hominems or arguments from authority (not implying I am one on this topic in particular) but I honestly feel like I'm taking to 3-4 people in particular who simply do not have enough unbiased knowledge about this topic. I am sorry but that is just how I feel at this point..
Im trying to find words that are not offensive now. I feel like we are living on different planets if you do not at least partly use YouTube for certain topics. If you find the good stuff it is incredibly good for unbelievably many topics (politics science.. Education/educational stuff on general).
Now it is totally fine if u don't use it.. But it is not like I posted a 1 hour video
Im sorry if I distorted your view that wasn't what I intended.
I mean honestly my view as short and as easily said and of thus without almost any nuance is:
The Israel state and its actors are as much at fault as Hamas. The Jewish people and Israeli population on average and at large is not a fault. Same is true for refugees and civilians in gaza west bank Palestine.
And so I'm confused whenever someone has the view that goes far away from this stance
E.g seeing Hamas (or even more absurd Palestine) as the only ore dominant culprit and vice versa..
If you're unwilling to watch video content from people and groups you disagree with, you won't be able to understand their point of view. You can't understand the West bank or Gaza without seeing the images. You can read all you want, that'll never be enough to give you a true understanding.
These are old videos from Vox from about seven years ago, part 1 and 2. They're short and get to the point very quickly. I'm not in agreement with these videos by the way, since very relevant information has been left out. What's missing is mainly the perspective of the Palestinian population. The videos are an eye-opener though for a few reasons. For example in part 2 you get a glimpse into the mindset of the settlers. Please watch the videos first if you can and then read the rest of my comment.
Additional relevant information is that Palestinians in the West bank are under very heavy surveillance and tight restriction of movement. The settlers are extremely paranoid to a degree that they don't even realize it, because it has become normal for them to be completely overprotected. They hardly recognize how much space they occupy and how that occupation combined with many roads and checkpoints negatively affects the Palestinians living nearby. They don't realize that their extreme safety hinges on oppression. One of the settlers uses the following words at 5:35 in part 2: "It sounds paradoxical but this just seems like the safest place in the world." This statement should raise more than a few eyebrows for a few different reasons. One of the questions would be why one of the most conflicted areas in the world would at the same time feel the safest? The answer lies in the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian population. This settler is a prime example of what it looks like when a massively privileged population bears the fruits of decades long oppression. One of the worst conflict zones in the world, to him, feels almost like paradise.
Edit: other relevant information is that about four times more Arabs live in the West bank compared to Israeli settlers - and yet the space they occupy is almost the exact opposite. The Israeli population is absolutely exploding in this region both in total numbers and in living space, and that's because the Israeli government funds and protects them while cutting off everyone else.
Seems Israel is having a hard time finding the "beating heart command center" (I'm sure it's heavy) they claim is under Al-Shifa.
more than 24 hours after Israel’s raid started, the Israeli army has not shown evidence of either Hamas-run tunnels or a military command centre under the hospital.
Come to think of it, after weeks in Gaza I don't think Israel has shown a single tunnel running into/out of a hospital or school.
It's not that I can't believe it's possible Hamas has tunnels that run under sensitive targets, but it certainly isn't supported by the results of Israel's ground invasion thus far.
Israel should leave the hospital immediately and let a committee from the UN/WHO/Red Cross check (as has been called for repeatedly). That way what they find can be independently verified unlike anything Israel puts out.
On November 17 2023 01:20 TentativePanda wrote: Dropping by for a second. Can someone explain to me how calling for a ceasefire is anti-semitic?
EPT
