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.
I voted yes because Palestinians are at war with Israel and the cycle of offense and defense is a fundamental component of that. Hamas is the Palestinian government of Gaza and they are at war with Israel.
I am praying this isn’t an attempt to drag the conversation into “they started it!!!”, since that’s a tired, repetitive discussion no one needs to repeat. But I’ve been hurt before, so I’m worried.
One of the first things anyone saying yes has to reconcile with their perspective is that Israel fundamentally disagrees with them.
This justifies collective punishment by making Hamas and Palestinians the same thing. Hamas and Palestinians are not one and the same the same way all americans are not republicans or George bush launching an invasion of Iraq.
That's a peculiar way to read/react to that sentence, but no, it doesn't.
It's not hard guys, the sentence means what it says.
You are saying "Israel believes Palestinians do not have a right to self defense" + Show Spoiler +
That would mean Israel believes if they unleashed their entire military on all Palestinian land, they would believe any form of retribution would be an injustice. It would mean all Palestinians living in Israel should not have any form of access to the justice system and any crime committed against them would be considered equivalent to cutting a piece of paper.
You also only wrote "Israel". Did you mean Israeli government? All Israeli citizens? Who is included in "Israel"?
Are you worried we will use your words against you in some way? We are not politicians. Well, for all I know you actually are one, but I have no idea who you are and I don't think any of us do. You could describe an enthusiasm for ketchup on steak and none of us would have a means of holding you accountable for it. A lot of people totally hate a bunch of stuff I say, but I don't think it really harms my relationship with folks here and it isn't something that harms by daily life. Because we're just some people talking in an internet community semi-anonymously. I think you should feel more comfortable describing your views in more detail and participating with more earnest. You clearly want to engage, but something appears to make you hesitate. I don't know what it is, but I hope it is destroyed through some means.
This much is correct.
As far as whatever hesitation you're perceiving, it's probably you seeing how deeply unserious I perceive the arguments/points raised by those attempting to rationalize Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign to be.
@Nebuchad Intentionally - In an intentional manner. So you look up intentional: Intentional - done by intention or design. So we look up intention (as I did): Intention - A thing intended. So we look up intended: intends - to have in mind as a purpose or goal.
I apologize for jumping 2 steps ahead, but we went down the semantics hole to get to exactly what I said. Congrats.
@Magic-Phil I'm just going to let your post stand as is. I have no goal to convince you of anything, but it's useful for 3rd parties to see where your posts are coming from and make their own opinions.
For the Starcraft fans, the "A" key stands for Attack. When you A-move it's Attack-Move. The act is still telling your units to "attack" even if it's in your own base.
I voted yes because Palestinians are at war with Israel and the cycle of offense and defense is a fundamental component of that. Hamas is the Palestinian government of Gaza and they are at war with Israel.
I am praying this isn’t an attempt to drag the conversation into “they started it!!!”, since that’s a tired, repetitive discussion no one needs to repeat. But I’ve been hurt before, so I’m worried.
One of the first things anyone saying yes has to reconcile with their perspective is that Israel fundamentally disagrees with them.
This justifies collective punishment by making Hamas and Palestinians the same thing. Hamas and Palestinians are not one and the same the same way all americans are not republicans or George bush launching an invasion of Iraq.
In the sentence "disagree with them", "them" is not Palestinians, it's the people who answered "yes" to the poll. He's saying that Israel disagrees with you on the notion that Palestinians have a right to self-defense. I can only assume that you're (collectively) having trouble with the sentence because otherwise your reactions don't make any sense at all.
No I get what hes saying and what the sentence says. Hes saying if you think that Palestinians have a right to self defence than you have to reconcile that isreal disagrees with you. The organization that is preforming the "self defence" is Hamas. GH is trying to tie togeather the empathy people have to the people of Palestine to the actions of Hamas.
If you belive that Hamas has a right to preform the actions its doing as an act of self defence than you have to belive that the collective punishment Isreal is inflicting on Palestine is justified beacuse Isreal is then acting in self defence of what Hamas did and is doing.
We have to deal with Isreal trying to justify everything its doing under the Casus belli of "self defence" the insanity of acepting that as a valid argument and then applying it to Hamas is just shitty.
I voted yes because Palestinians are at war with Israel and the cycle of offense and defense is a fundamental component of that. Hamas is the Palestinian government of Gaza and they are at war with Israel.
I am praying this isn’t an attempt to drag the conversation into “they started it!!!”, since that’s a tired, repetitive discussion no one needs to repeat. But I’ve been hurt before, so I’m worried.
One of the first things anyone saying yes has to reconcile with their perspective is that Israel fundamentally disagrees with them.
This justifies collective punishment by making Hamas and Palestinians the same thing. Hamas and Palestinians are not one and the same the same way all americans are not republicans or George bush launching an invasion of Iraq.
That's a peculiar way to read/react to that sentence, but no, it doesn't.
It's not hard guys, the sentence means what it says.
Again we have to deal with someone whos maturity level boils down to "nu uh" when confronted in any way.
Well you can say that the ongoing attack of IDF on Gaza is sth you condone. But if you start saying "Hamas is attacking Israel still.. on..their own territory.. attacking" you are missusing words in such a blatant way you have blown your cover.
You are no longer discussing in good faith. Period. It is kinda absurd he went there.
As absurd as JimmiC calling people here who werent "100% PRO to what israel is doing right no" antisemites..
A clown show at this point. Ill try to refrain from posting. Might not make it if someone replies but would almost appreciate them not doing it.
Just too dumb to engage with bias so big that there is a need to legit misuse w o r d s to fit ones own narrative..
On November 17 2023 08:26 RenSC2 wrote: @Nebuchad Intentionally - In an intentional manner. So you look up intentional: Intentional - done by intention or design. So we look up intention (as I did): Intention - A thing intended. So we look up intended: intends - to have in mind as a purpose or goal.
I apologize for jumping 2 steps ahead, but we went down the semantics hole to get to exactly what I said. Congrats.
Or you could have just checked "intentionally" and seen that it says "in an intentional manner: with awareness of what one is doing: purposely", which is perfectly in line with the way I used it. Would you like me to use the word "deliberate" instead so that we can finally end this silly conversation?
On November 17 2023 07:06 RenSC2 wrote: @Magic Powers If a serial killer hasn't killed in over a month, should the police stop pursuing him? That would be silly. Even if Hamas laid down their arms completely, they should still be pursued for what they did on Oct 7th.
If pursuing the killer comes with the expectation of significantly more innocent lives lost than from not pursuing him, then yes the police should stop pursing. Especially so if the killer is expected to not be able to kill anyone ever again due to being exposed as the threat that he is, and thus the police being able to protect people properly moving forward. I don't know why this isn't clear yet? We've been having this discussion for many pages.
Are you under the impression that Hamas will never kill again?
It is not that you are not clear, or he is not being clear it is that you disagree.
I've made this argument so many times now, it should be well understood by now. Hamas are not a real threat to the existence of the State of Israel. Their absolute best effort resulted in not much more than 1200 deaths, and it took the IDF not very long to drive them all out and secure the borders. The next attack by Hamas is going to cost far fewer lives because the IDF can prepare for absolutely every conceivable angle of attack and they will not make the same mistake again of underestimating Hamas' will and capability. Furthermore, Hamas has already been militarily crippled in the past few weeks.
There is no realistic expectation that Hamas can kill another 1200 people in Israel. It's absolutely ridiculous to assume they can repeat that, because that assumption would require the IDF to drop their guard for a second time just as they did before October 7. It makes no sense. Hamas can't be considered so dangerous anymore at this point that it'd justify the killing of so many innocent civilians in the pursuit of destroying Hamas. It doesn't check out.
You have made that argument many times. It is just that many do not agree with it.
Israel has like spent more on defense by % than any country in history. They have a fancy anti missile system, walls that go underground, a listening system so advanced many people consider it a human rights violation and so on. And this still happened. It could easily happen again, hell you would be arguing it was impossible that his happened right up until Oct. the 6th.
If you look at history especially of this area it has changed who is oppressing who over and over again. The Jews have been on the bottom lots more than the top. It is naive to think it will never change again. You have a far larger population surrounding Israel that openly wants it gone and all the people of Jewish religion and heritage killed than those who want it to exist.
I do agree with you that the civilian cost is not justified.
Maybe this helps you understand my position better:
1) Hamas has killed roughly 0.01% (1 in 8108) people in Israel. The IDF has killed roughly 1.4% (1 in 69) Palestinians. 2) Hamas is no longer killing Israeli people. The IDF continues to kill more than a thousand Palestinians every week. 3) Hamas has taken a few hundred hostages. 4) Hamas has destroyed almost no Israeli infrastructure. The IDF has destroyed much of Gaza, mostly civilian infrastructure. 5) Hamas has uprooted no Israeli people. The IDF has uprooted hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. 6) No fighting is taking place in Israel anymore. All fighting has moved to Gaza. 7) The war has turned against Hamas a month ago. The majority of this war has been an endless series of successes for IDF and practically no successes by Hamas. The trend is completely one-sided.
For the Starcraft fans, the "A" key stands for Attack. When you A-move it's Attack-Move. The act is still telling your units to "attack" even if it's in your own base...
You are just not bright Im sorry to be offensive again. I can not phrase it any other way at this point.
WAR is both sides A- moving.
However if Im in your BASE i am attacking and you are defending. Israel is currently IN Hamas base (which is unfortunately at the same time Gaza which is a insanely populated refugee camp).
So when you are saying Hamas is the one attacking right now you are either DUMB or a LIER.
I voted yes because Palestinians are at war with Israel and the cycle of offense and defense is a fundamental component of that. Hamas is the Palestinian government of Gaza and they are at war with Israel.
I am praying this isn’t an attempt to drag the conversation into “they started it!!!”, since that’s a tired, repetitive discussion no one needs to repeat. But I’ve been hurt before, so I’m worried.
One of the first things anyone saying yes has to reconcile with their perspective is that Israel fundamentally disagrees with them.
This justifies collective punishment by making Hamas and Palestinians the same thing. Hamas and Palestinians are not one and the same the same way all americans are not republicans or George bush launching an invasion of Iraq.
In the sentence "disagree with them", "them" is not Palestinians, it's the people who answered "yes" to the poll. He's saying that Israel disagrees with you on the notion that Palestinians have a right to self-defense. I can only assume that you're (collectively) having trouble with the sentence because otherwise your reactions don't make any sense at all.
No I get what hes saying and what the sentence says. Hes saying if you think that Palestinians have a right to self defence than you have to reconcile that isreal disagrees with you. The organization that is preforming the "self defence" is Hamas. GH is trying to tie togeather the empathy people have to the people of Palestine to the actions of Hamas.
This is not why GH said this, but it's understandable that you didn't read pages of context. There is no method of self-defense that a Palestinian can use that the government of Israel would find acceptable, it's not limited to joining Hamas. There is supposed to be a cognitive dissonance when one at the same time defends Israel in some fashion (not you in this case, or if you do I don't remember) and also believes that Palestinians have a right to self-defense, provided that the reason why Palestinians don't have access to any avenue that would allow them to exercize that right to self-defense is the government of Israel making damn sure that they don't get that access.
On November 17 2023 08:26 RenSC2 wrote: @Nebuchad Intentionally - In an intentional manner. So you look up intentional: Intentional - done by intention or design. So we look up intention (as I did): Intention - A thing intended. So we look up intended: intends - to have in mind as a purpose or goal.
I apologize for jumping 2 steps ahead, but we went down the semantics hole to get to exactly what I said. Congrats.
Or you could have just checked "intentionally" and seen that it says "in an intentional manner: with awareness of what one is doing: purposely", which is perfectly in line with the way I used it. Would you like me to use the word "deliberate" instead so that we can finally end this silly conversation?
I do find these semantic arguments to be the most boring type of argument, so I'd rather end it too. So this will be my last word on these semantics.
That bit at the end "purposely" is the part I disagree with. Depending on the definition of "deliberate", it can work, but often implies "intentional" as well, which puts us back in the original disagreement.
I agree with you that something like "accidentally" killing civilians is not strong enough because they know they're killing civilians and it's not a mistake. It's an accepted loss, it's just not the purpose (in my opinion, we may disagree here too).
So I would say "knowingly" killing civilians. That's the best I've got.
On November 17 2023 07:06 RenSC2 wrote: @Magic Powers If a serial killer hasn't killed in over a month, should the police stop pursuing him? That would be silly. Even if Hamas laid down their arms completely, they should still be pursued for what they did on Oct 7th.
If pursuing the killer comes with the expectation of significantly more innocent lives lost than from not pursuing him, then yes the police should stop pursing. Especially so if the killer is expected to not be able to kill anyone ever again due to being exposed as the threat that he is, and thus the police being able to protect people properly moving forward. I don't know why this isn't clear yet? We've been having this discussion for many pages.
Are you under the impression that Hamas will never kill again?
It is not that you are not clear, or he is not being clear it is that you disagree.
I've made this argument so many times now, it should be well understood by now. Hamas are not a real threat to the existence of the State of Israel. Their absolute best effort resulted in not much more than 1200 deaths, and it took the IDF not very long to drive them all out and secure the borders. The next attack by Hamas is going to cost far fewer lives because the IDF can prepare for absolutely every conceivable angle of attack and they will not make the same mistake again of underestimating Hamas' will and capability. Furthermore, Hamas has already been militarily crippled in the past few weeks.
There is no realistic expectation that Hamas can kill another 1200 people in Israel. It's absolutely ridiculous to assume they can repeat that, because that assumption would require the IDF to drop their guard for a second time just as they did before October 7. It makes no sense. Hamas can't be considered so dangerous anymore at this point that it'd justify the killing of so many innocent civilians in the pursuit of destroying Hamas. It doesn't check out.
You have made that argument many times. It is just that many do not agree with it.
Israel has like spent more on defense by % than any country in history. They have a fancy anti missile system, walls that go underground, a listening system so advanced many people consider it a human rights violation and so on. And this still happened. It could easily happen again, hell you would be arguing it was impossible that his happened right up until Oct. the 6th.
If you look at history especially of this area it has changed who is oppressing who over and over again. The Jews have been on the bottom lots more than the top. It is naive to think it will never change again. You have a far larger population surrounding Israel that openly wants it gone and all the people of Jewish religion and heritage killed than those who want it to exist.
I do agree with you that the civilian cost is not justified.
Maybe this helps you understand my position better:
1) Hamas has killed roughly 0.01% (1 in 8108) people in Israel. The IDF has killed roughly 1.4% (1 in 69) Palestinians. 2) Hamas is no longer killing Israeli people. The IDF continues to kill more than a thousand Palestinians every week. 3) Hamas has taken a few hundred hostages. 4) Hamas has destroyed almost no Israeli infrastructure. The IDF has destroyed much of Gaza, mostly civilian infrastructure. 5) Hamas has uprooted no Israeli people. The IDF has uprooted hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. 6) No fighting is taking place in Israel anymore. All fighting has moved to Gaza. 7) The war has turned against Hamas a month ago. The majority of this war has been an endless series of successes for IDF and practically no successes by Hamas. The trend is completely one-sided.
How is this a counter to any point I have made? What are you arguing against?
On top of that some of it is wrong. For example you are suggesting that all the people killed have been killed by the IDF, we know this not to be true. What the percentages we have no idea, but for some reason people keep liking to pretend that it is all by the IDF and that all of them are civilians.
You also do not seem to think that intention matters.
I also disagree that power imbalance makes everything Israel does wrong and everything Hamas does OK.
Look, at this point I don't know what you're arguing for or against anymore. You keep disagreeing with things, and then later it turns out you're not in disagreement. This keeps happening.
On November 17 2023 08:26 RenSC2 wrote: @Nebuchad Intentionally - In an intentional manner. So you look up intentional: Intentional - done by intention or design. So we look up intention (as I did): Intention - A thing intended. So we look up intended: intends - to have in mind as a purpose or goal.
I apologize for jumping 2 steps ahead, but we went down the semantics hole to get to exactly what I said. Congrats.
Or you could have just checked "intentionally" and seen that it says "in an intentional manner: with awareness of what one is doing: purposely", which is perfectly in line with the way I used it. Would you like me to use the word "deliberate" instead so that we can finally end this silly conversation?
I do find these semantic arguments to be the most boring type of argument, so I'd rather end it too. So this will be my last word on these semantics.
That bit at the end "purposely" is the part I disagree with. Depending on the definition of "deliberate", it can work, but often implies "intentional" as well, which puts us back in the original disagreement.
I agree with you that something like "accidentally" killing civilians is not strong enough because they know they're killing civilians and it's not a mistake. It's an accepted loss, it's just not the purpose (in my opinion, we may disagree here too).
So I would say "knowingly" killing civilians. That's the best I've got.
How is ‘knowingly’ any different from ‘intentionally’?
I voted yes because Palestinians are at war with Israel and the cycle of offense and defense is a fundamental component of that. Hamas is the Palestinian government of Gaza and they are at war with Israel.
I am praying this isn’t an attempt to drag the conversation into “they started it!!!”, since that’s a tired, repetitive discussion no one needs to repeat. But I’ve been hurt before, so I’m worried.
One of the first things anyone saying yes has to reconcile with their perspective is that Israel fundamentally disagrees with them.
This justifies collective punishment by making Hamas and Palestinians the same thing. Hamas and Palestinians are not one and the same the same way all americans are not republicans or George bush launching an invasion of Iraq.
In the sentence "disagree with them", "them" is not Palestinians, it's the people who answered "yes" to the poll. He's saying that Israel disagrees with you on the notion that Palestinians have a right to self-defense. I can only assume that you're (collectively) having trouble with the sentence because otherwise your reactions don't make any sense at all.
No I get what hes saying and what the sentence says. Hes saying if you think that Palestinians have a right to self defence than you have to reconcile that isreal disagrees with you. The organization that is preforming the "self defence" is Hamas. GH is trying to tie togeather the empathy people have to the people of Palestine to the actions of Hamas.
This is not why GH said this, but it's understandable that you didn't read pages of context. There is no method of self-defense that a Palestinian can use that the government of Israel would find acceptable, it's not limited to joining Hamas. There is supposed to be a cognitive dissonance when one at the same time defends Israel in some fashion (not you in this case, or if you do I don't remember) and also believes that Palestinians have a right to self-defense, provided that the reason why Palestinians don't have access to any avenue that would allow them to exercize that right to self-defense is the government of Israel making damn sure that they don't get that access.
I have read the thread and I understand the context. The line of logic is faulty still beacuse it justifies collective punishment, if it is applied to either side. Trying to make an argument acepting the line of thought from Isreal that somehow "self defense" would justify either sides actions in effect justifies the reaction inherent to any argument about self defense.
You can just say that self defense is acceptable but doesn't justify any method of self defense. Playing games of "what self defence is justified or not" is an unhelpful game to justify one war crime or another. GH is still trying to tie peoples perception of Palestinians with the actions of Hamas. It would be just as wrong to tie the actions of the IDF to the people of Isreal, or jews altogeather. I did not imply this in my initial post and GH could have, if he would have decided to read it in good faith, seen it as supporting his exercise to reflect what Isreal was implying with its "right to self defence" but he doesn't have that in him.
I voted yes because Palestinians are at war with Israel and the cycle of offense and defense is a fundamental component of that. Hamas is the Palestinian government of Gaza and they are at war with Israel.
I am praying this isn’t an attempt to drag the conversation into “they started it!!!”, since that’s a tired, repetitive discussion no one needs to repeat. But I’ve been hurt before, so I’m worried.
One of the first things anyone saying yes has to reconcile with their perspective is that Israel fundamentally disagrees with them.
This justifies collective punishment by making Hamas and Palestinians the same thing. Hamas and Palestinians are not one and the same the same way all americans are not republicans or George bush launching an invasion of Iraq.
In the sentence "disagree with them", "them" is not Palestinians, it's the people who answered "yes" to the poll. He's saying that Israel disagrees with you on the notion that Palestinians have a right to self-defense. I can only assume that you're (collectively) having trouble with the sentence because otherwise your reactions don't make any sense at all.
No I get what hes saying and what the sentence says. Hes saying if you think that Palestinians have a right to self defence than you have to reconcile that isreal disagrees with you. The organization that is preforming the "self defence" is Hamas. GH is trying to tie togeather the empathy people have to the people of Palestine to the actions of Hamas.
This is not why GH said this, but it's understandable that you didn't read pages of context. There is no method of self-defense that a Palestinian can use that the government of Israel would find acceptable, it's not limited to joining Hamas. There is supposed to be a cognitive dissonance when one at the same time defends Israel in some fashion (not you in this case, or if you do I don't remember) and also believes that Palestinians have a right to self-defense, provided that the reason why Palestinians don't have access to any avenue that would allow them to exercize that right to self-defense is the government of Israel making damn sure that they don't get that access.
Indeed, I’m sure it’s not anything intentional or biased often times, just rather naive.
Unless the wider international community changes stances, which is highly unlikely, there is nothing the Palestinians can do to see their basic rights respected, never mind their political goals actualised.
I don’t even think the shift towards Hamas was ever really about choosing another path towards those goals. I think it can read as a ‘well we’re fucked, but at least we can lash out’
People are acting as if Israel is a reasonable, principled state in this domain and it’s just consistently shown over decades that it absolutely is not such a state.
If it were, and had been we wouldn’t be at the particular juncture we find ourselves in today.
But again not having an acceptable means of pursuing self defence doesn't excuse your actions in response to your situation. Hamas can't be excused for what they did if they did it on behalf of all Palestinians because then it would justify collective punishment of Palestinians.
It's just the reflective argument about why what the idf is doing isn't acceptable by them claiming to do it on behalf of all Israeli citizens being under threat for what hamas did. All you end up with is circular justification of war crimes.
On November 17 2023 09:57 Sermokala wrote: But again not having an acceptable means of pursuing self defence doesn't excuse your actions in response to your situation. Hamas can't be excused for what they did if they did it on behalf of all Palestinians because then it would justify collective punishment of Palestinians.
It's just the reflective argument about why what the idf is doing isn't acceptable by them claiming to do it on behalf of all Israeli citizens being under threat for what hamas did. All you end up with is circular justification of war crimes.
Right, so try something else.
Even baby steps in the right direction are preferable to those preferred by Hamas, and by an increasingly hardened right in Israel.
It’s hard sure, but those are the steps you gradually disarm a conflict.
Neither side seems particularly willing to do so, nor do their allies push them towards that direction, with results that are wholly predictable.
On November 16 2023 23:48 Magic Powers wrote: @RvB
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.
You're right. Sometimes video and pictures are better than text and a necessity. What I said was false. I watch some videos like from the Hamas attacks and the consequences of Israels attacks on Gaza. I just have a large preference for text and avoid videos if I can. As you say yourself they often leave out a large amount of information. Often so much that the videos are unreliable and wrong. My background is in Economics and Finance and I don't think I've seen one YouTube video on the subject that is accurate. They're all a disaster quite frankly.
For the rest of the post I'm not sure what the point is. I dont support the settlements and I never have. I also do not think anyone in the thread does.
On November 17 2023 01:46 BlackJack wrote: To me RvB‘s postings have been quite reasonable and rational, even though they mostly oppose my own opinions. “Watch this youtube and respond” is a lazy way to argue and I see no issue if RvB doesn’t want to participate with that. It’s especially bizarre to consider it as a “refusal to respond to things that contradict his view” considering he’s been doing that for the entirety of this thread. People were able to have discussions before YouTube was invented. If someone is unable to adequately summarize and relay a YouTube video into words that seems like their failing as opposed to anyone else’s failing for not watching the video.
Thank you. Much appreciated. Much more than you can imagine.
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.
John Oliver is reading words off an auto cue. You’re not necessarily trusting him, you’re trusting the research and editorial team that produces the show. The guy reading is trusted only to be able to turn written text into mouth noises correctly.
I know. It does not change anything. I don't trust their research and editorial team. Shows like John Oliver are somewhat convincing until they address a subject you know a lot about. Then you realise they have no idea what they're talking about. At least that's my experience.
On November 17 2023 08:11 MaGic~PhiL wrote: I think I get it now somewhat. One side is looking at this conflict from a outside / meta view and tries to look at it objectively and from a policy / military stance.
The others JimmiC, Rens and RvB seem like they have a a certain view they want to or need to hold upfront. And they simply wont refrain from it.
Going as far as simly misusing words (fighting on your own land gets called attacking).. I mean come on.. at some point it gets a bit blatant doesn it.
I have no one close there. I have no personal qualms or biases. All I have is extreme pity for everyone there suffering. Israels and Palestines alike. However if Id have to choose numbers Id say on a scale from 1-100 .. the Israeli poulation is sowmehere at 3-4 on the suffering scal whilst most of gazans are at 79+..
And that is precisely what irks me the most.. RvB Rens and JimmiC in particular are writing here in a manner that makes you think the "level of suffering is pretty equal"..
Maybe you really think that? JimmiC, RvB, Rens, do you? Maybe you in fact think Israel on average suffers more than Palestine?
Like the way you talk about the imminent dangers of hamas to israel is so absurd. Tel Aviv is one of the safest cities.. Israel is extremely safe.
You paint a picture that is just simply not in line with reality. I am sorry.
If you think that there's not much discussion to be had. To answer your question no it's not that simple. Hamas, Fatah, and Israel have all had their role to play in the current mess. What it comes down to is that I don't see a way forward with Hamas. Leaving them in charge of Gaza will only extend the suffering.
On November 17 2023 07:06 RenSC2 wrote: @Magic Powers If a serial killer hasn't killed in over a month, should the police stop pursuing him? That would be silly. Even if Hamas laid down their arms completely, they should still be pursued for what they did on Oct 7th.
If pursuing the killer comes with the expectation of significantly more innocent lives lost than from not pursuing him, then yes the police should stop pursing. Especially so if the killer is expected to not be able to kill anyone ever again due to being exposed as the threat that he is, and thus the police being able to protect people properly moving forward. I don't know why this isn't clear yet? We've been having this discussion for many pages.
Are you under the impression that Hamas will never kill again?
It is not that you are not clear, or he is not being clear it is that you disagree.
I've made this argument so many times now, it should be well understood by now. Hamas are not a real threat to the existence of the State of Israel. Their absolute best effort resulted in not much more than 1200 deaths, and it took the IDF not very long to drive them all out and secure the borders. The next attack by Hamas is going to cost far fewer lives because the IDF can prepare for absolutely every conceivable angle of attack and they will not make the same mistake again of underestimating Hamas' will and capability. Furthermore, Hamas has already been militarily crippled in the past few weeks.
There is no realistic expectation that Hamas can kill another 1200 people in Israel. It's absolutely ridiculous to assume they can repeat that, because that assumption would require the IDF to drop their guard for a second time just as they did before October 7. It makes no sense. Hamas can't be considered so dangerous anymore at this point that it'd justify the killing of so many innocent civilians in the pursuit of destroying Hamas. It doesn't check out.
You have made that argument many times. It is just that many do not agree with it.
Israel has like spent more on defense by % than any country in history. They have a fancy anti missile system, walls that go underground, a listening system so advanced many people consider it a human rights violation and so on. And this still happened. It could easily happen again, hell you would be arguing it was impossible that his happened right up until Oct. the 6th.
If you look at history especially of this area it has changed who is oppressing who over and over again. The Jews have been on the bottom lots more than the top. It is naive to think it will never change again. You have a far larger population surrounding Israel that openly wants it gone and all the people of Jewish religion and heritage killed than those who want it to exist.
I do agree with you that the civilian cost is not justified.
Maybe this helps you understand my position better:
1) Hamas has killed roughly 0.01% (1 in 8108) people in Israel. The IDF has killed roughly 1.4% (1 in 69) Palestinians. 2) Hamas is no longer killing Israeli people. The IDF continues to kill more than a thousand Palestinians every week. 3) Hamas has taken a few hundred hostages. 4) Hamas has destroyed almost no Israeli infrastructure. The IDF has destroyed much of Gaza, mostly civilian infrastructure. 5) Hamas has uprooted no Israeli people. The IDF has uprooted hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. 6) No fighting is taking place in Israel anymore. All fighting has moved to Gaza. 7) The war has turned against Hamas a month ago. The majority of this war has been an endless series of successes for IDF and practically no successes by Hamas. The trend is completely one-sided.
Where do you get the 1.4% of Palestinians from? 5 and 6 are also false. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens are displaced and they're still suffering rocket attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah.
How the fuck do you figure that Israel is 'following rules of war' when just about every humanitarian organization involved in the region has repeatedly accused them of war crimes, just about every nation in the world -- including their staunch allies such as the US -- have called them out for unlawful killings and assassinations, and they have consistently refused to cooperate with any and all investigations into any of this stuff?
It's incredible how you keep accusing other people of 'bias' while simultaneously completely rejecting all evidence that runs contrary to whatever beliefs you have. It's also quite telling how you specifically point out how 'We all have empathy for the Israeli people and even their rage' but not a word about empathy for Palestinians.
EPT
