|
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. |
Equating Israel and Hamas is definitely lazy at best and dishonest at worst. Its easy to use the standard muddying strategies of "but they both kill people and want the other one totally removed from the same piece of land", but they are simply not the same. There is value in remembering there are enormous differences between the stated goals, methods used, and the way they each provide for and protect their citizens. Hamas's perspectives on "martyrdom" and "should an elected government provide for their citizens" are pretty notable differences.
Regardless, the comparison isn't a worthwhile use of anyone's time. It is just a long chain of people saying "yeah but" in response to each other. It doesn't need to be a fighting game tier list. So while I don't think there is value in creating some data table comparing the 2, it is for sure worth pointing out they are not morally equivalent.
|
|
|
On November 22 2023 07:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 07:19 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2023 07:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 06:54 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 06:36 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 06:34 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 06:31 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 05:29 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 05:19 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 00:38 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Maybe some clarification is in order. In my view Hamas are the main insurgent faction in a war of occupation. You started from the premise that leaving Hamas in power can’t be the right answer, which to me means that some version of “eliminate Hamas” is a necessary component of an acceptable outcome. And “eliminate the insurgent faction” is essentially the occupier’s win condition in a war of occupation.
If we remove “eliminate Hamas” from the prerequisites of acceptable outcomes, I think the clear right answer is the same as Iraq or Vietnam or any of the rest: just go home and stop killing people. It means admitting defeat, but victory was never really on the table; it means those bad guys will still be in charge, but it was hubristic to think you had the power to go around the world replacing bad governments with good ones.
I suspect any official recognition of the Palestinian Authority as a government in a two-state solution would require the presence of international peacekeepers; otherwise Hamas is likely to just murder the members of any government that isn’t them. But pretty much any military in the world besides the IDF would have a better chance of being seen as impartial peacekeepers. It would also go a long way for the international community to make substantial investments in rebuilding destroyed infrastructure, considering the state the IDF has left Gaza in; unexploded ordnance alone has got to be absolutely everywhere, considering how bomb-happy they’ve been. When I say can not I meant unacceptable to me. I would hope unacceptable to everyone if they think Hamas is as bad as they say they do. But I did not mean it was impossible. I think there is a fair bit to unpack here. In both Iraq and Vietnam the threats were more existential and they are half a planet away. A better example might be North and South Korea, If NK was not a nuclear threat and did what Hamas has done (not just Oct 7th), would you be giving them the same advice? Should have the west supported SK and should it still be? From your third paragraph can I assume your suggestion is that post Oct 7th Israel does nothing outside their boarders. Then the UN sends some sort of force into Gaza and they fight Hamas and give power to the PA? Wouldn't all those soldiers and UN workers not to mention the PA people be in mortal danger at all times? I do not think they would have any more success defeating Hamas without killing civilian's, so they really could not fight them. Which would mean they would just to accept that on a regular basis and as often as Hamas could they would be attacked and killed. Are you certain that this would be better than this in the long term? I do not see it as realistically working. I know that Canadian peacekeepers that are targets for Hamas would be extremely unpopular here and likely true the rest of the world. I can not see any foreign government stepping up to fill that role. The comparison to the Korean conflict is apt, and I'm somewhat surprised that you don't conclude that something similar would be achievable - if given a solid effort - with Israel and Palestinians. I believe it absolutely is. Seeing that South Korea manages to hold North Korea at bay, I wonder why Israel wouldn't be able to accomplish something similar with Hamas? Is that a good outcome for Palestinians or anyone ? Short term less people die but I hope we are shooting higher than complete subjugation of a population not to mention an ongoing threat of them starting a war back up at any moment. I mean, I do think it's preferable for people to be under a horrible regime that isn't bombarding them than to be bombarded by a different horrible regime. I don't know how else to put it. Wait Israel is as bad as North Korea? I do not think any of the 20% of the population of Israel who are Palestinians would take that trade. I'm not comparing Israel to North Korea. That was only my first comment (and I was comparing Israel to South Korea, because it was about their military might). South Korea is able to hold off North Korea. Likewise Israel should be able to hold off Hamas. My second comment was about Palestinians getting bombed (by Israel) vs not getting bombed (by Hamas). Despite both Israel and Hamas being horrible regimes, at least Hamas doesn't intend to bomb tens of thousands of Palestinians. No they kill them much more personally and only if they disobey their perverted version of religion. So far Israel is killing lots, but we have no idea how many are civilians vs fighters and we may never know. We also have no idea how many of the dead were killed directly by Hamas, either because they wouldn’t flee or because their rocket didn’t make it to Israel. Israel is not close to the same level of Hamas it is not remotely comparable. This is my huge issue with many of the people here you are starting from a position of Israel is evil and all their actions are evil with evil motivations. I start from the position that Israel is a democracy with all the good and bad that comes with it. The people there are a med as well and terrified and angry, as most of us would be if a friend, family member or someone we knew was killed by Hamas in the manner it happened. If this had happened to any other democratic country but Israel these are not the assumptions that would be made about them. Its possible for Hamas to be worse then Israel and for Israel to still be 'evil'. And if anyone other then Israel was doing what Israel is doing now the world would complain a whole hell of a lot more. Sure it is, a whole bunch of things are possible, such as much of what the far right believes. Just in cases that do not involve Israel people on the left do not treat the possibilities as fact. There is a shocking amount of evil stuff going on in the world every day, it just does not get the media attention. But this is all just stuff to distract from what are the non evil things for Israel to do and actually walking down that path to where it gets us.
I don't understand why people keep saying this. Israel has plenty of other ways. We've been talking about this endlessly, and yet the same people keep returning to the same argument over and over again. Israel is not a mindless actor, they have agency. They don't have to keep doing what they're doing.
If Israel has to accept casualties as a consequence of Hamas existing, then that might just be what it means to take the high road in this conflict. Until Israel is a force for good and not evil (I'm alluding to the oppression of Palestinians) I don't believe they're in a position to complain and argue that they have a right to kill thousands of Palestinians.
|
On November 22 2023 04:18 Mohdoo wrote:
lol Houthis basically saying “don’t worry Hamas, I’ll tag in while you’re on a ceasefire you’ll violate anyway” by indicating they’ll keep attacking until Israel destroyed.
It makes sense, since Yemen is one of the many neighboring nations that love to use collective punishment of Jews. Ethnic cleansing is quite common in nations neighboring Israel.
Houthis don't really have the range to play a big role in this, afaik so far their launches towards Israel only managed to damage.. Egypt.
|
On November 22 2023 07:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Equating Israel and Hamas is definitely lazy at best and dishonest at worst. Its easy to use the standard muddying strategies of "but they both kill people and want the other one totally removed from the same piece of land", but they are simply not the same. There is value in remembering there are enormous differences between the stated goals, methods used, and the way they each provide for and protect their citizens. Hamas's perspectives on "martyrdom" and "should an elected government provide for their citizens" are pretty notable differences.
Regardless, the comparison isn't a worthwhile use of anyone's time. It is just a long chain of people saying "yeah but" in response to each other. It doesn't need to be a fighting game tier list. So while I don't think there is value in creating some data table comparing the 2, it is for sure worth pointing out they are not morally equivalent.
Why is it lazy and dishonest to compare Israel and Hamas? What the IDF has been doing in the last few weeks is an absolute atrocity, I can only call it a crime against humanity.
|
On November 22 2023 07:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2023 06:54 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 06:36 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 06:34 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 06:31 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 05:29 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 05:19 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 00:38 ChristianS wrote:On November 22 2023 00:20 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I'm going to leave your first paragraph out of my response because it will just take it down the same rabbit hole and no one seems willing to go any where interesting and confront the difficulty of what we actually define as a "war crime".
I'm not asking how you win a war of occupation. I've stated over and over again I do not think the IDF has made the correct strategic or ethical/morale choice.
Hamas is governing that place and they did so by force, by killing many members of the Palestinian Authority and anyone who supported them. So exactly how would you give them control?
My question is not "what would a good war look like?". My question is not a hidden gotcha, it is a legitimate what is right decision. And if you work all the way back I believe a lot of people feel like Israel has no right to exist. I say this because every move that seems to approved of means giving control to people who want to kill all the people of Jewish decent and Religion.
Maybe some clarification is in order. In my view Hamas are the main insurgent faction in a war of occupation. You started from the premise that leaving Hamas in power can’t be the right answer, which to me means that some version of “eliminate Hamas” is a necessary component of an acceptable outcome. And “eliminate the insurgent faction” is essentially the occupier’s win condition in a war of occupation. If we remove “eliminate Hamas” from the prerequisites of acceptable outcomes, I think the clear right answer is the same as Iraq or Vietnam or any of the rest: just go home and stop killing people. It means admitting defeat, but victory was never really on the table; it means those bad guys will still be in charge, but it was hubristic to think you had the power to go around the world replacing bad governments with good ones. I suspect any official recognition of the Palestinian Authority as a government in a two-state solution would require the presence of international peacekeepers; otherwise Hamas is likely to just murder the members of any government that isn’t them. But pretty much any military in the world besides the IDF would have a better chance of being seen as impartial peacekeepers. It would also go a long way for the international community to make substantial investments in rebuilding destroyed infrastructure, considering the state the IDF has left Gaza in; unexploded ordnance alone has got to be absolutely everywhere, considering how bomb-happy they’ve been. When I say can not I meant unacceptable to me. I would hope unacceptable to everyone if they think Hamas is as bad as they say they do. But I did not mean it was impossible. I think there is a fair bit to unpack here. In both Iraq and Vietnam the threats were more existential and they are half a planet away. A better example might be North and South Korea, If NK was not a nuclear threat and did what Hamas has done (not just Oct 7th), would you be giving them the same advice? Should have the west supported SK and should it still be? From your third paragraph can I assume your suggestion is that post Oct 7th Israel does nothing outside their boarders. Then the UN sends some sort of force into Gaza and they fight Hamas and give power to the PA? Wouldn't all those soldiers and UN workers not to mention the PA people be in mortal danger at all times? I do not think they would have any more success defeating Hamas without killing civilian's, so they really could not fight them. Which would mean they would just to accept that on a regular basis and as often as Hamas could they would be attacked and killed. Are you certain that this would be better than this in the long term? I do not see it as realistically working. I know that Canadian peacekeepers that are targets for Hamas would be extremely unpopular here and likely true the rest of the world. I can not see any foreign government stepping up to fill that role. The comparison to the Korean conflict is apt, and I'm somewhat surprised that you don't conclude that something similar would be achievable - if given a solid effort - with Israel and Palestinians. I believe it absolutely is. Seeing that South Korea manages to hold North Korea at bay, I wonder why Israel wouldn't be able to accomplish something similar with Hamas? Is that a good outcome for Palestinians or anyone ? Short term less people die but I hope we are shooting higher than complete subjugation of a population not to mention an ongoing threat of them starting a war back up at any moment. I mean, I do think it's preferable for people to be under a horrible regime that isn't bombarding them than to be bombarded by a different horrible regime. I don't know how else to put it. Wait Israel is as bad as North Korea? I do not think any of the 20% of the population of Israel who are Palestinians would take that trade. I'm not comparing Israel to North Korea. That was only my first comment (and I was comparing Israel to South Korea, because it was about their military might). South Korea is able to hold off North Korea. Likewise Israel should be able to hold off Hamas. My second comment was about Palestinians getting bombed (by Israel) vs not getting bombed (by Hamas). Despite both Israel and Hamas being horrible regimes, at least Hamas doesn't intend to bomb tens of thousands of Palestinians. The problem with Israel/Hamas is that Hamas doesn't have enough to lose. I think there's merit to the argument that if Hamas had something to lose then it wouldn't really exist, or it would exist in a form that is very different from what we see today.
I think that's part of what the US has been harping on Israel for. Typically there would at least be lip service for a "hearts and minds" campaign alongside the bombing that's been glaringly absent so far.
|
On November 22 2023 07:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 07:19 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2023 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2023 06:54 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 06:36 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 06:34 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 06:31 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 05:29 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 05:19 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 00:38 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Maybe some clarification is in order. In my view Hamas are the main insurgent faction in a war of occupation. You started from the premise that leaving Hamas in power can’t be the right answer, which to me means that some version of “eliminate Hamas” is a necessary component of an acceptable outcome. And “eliminate the insurgent faction” is essentially the occupier’s win condition in a war of occupation.
If we remove “eliminate Hamas” from the prerequisites of acceptable outcomes, I think the clear right answer is the same as Iraq or Vietnam or any of the rest: just go home and stop killing people. It means admitting defeat, but victory was never really on the table; it means those bad guys will still be in charge, but it was hubristic to think you had the power to go around the world replacing bad governments with good ones.
I suspect any official recognition of the Palestinian Authority as a government in a two-state solution would require the presence of international peacekeepers; otherwise Hamas is likely to just murder the members of any government that isn’t them. But pretty much any military in the world besides the IDF would have a better chance of being seen as impartial peacekeepers. It would also go a long way for the international community to make substantial investments in rebuilding destroyed infrastructure, considering the state the IDF has left Gaza in; unexploded ordnance alone has got to be absolutely everywhere, considering how bomb-happy they’ve been. When I say can not I meant unacceptable to me. I would hope unacceptable to everyone if they think Hamas is as bad as they say they do. But I did not mean it was impossible. I think there is a fair bit to unpack here. In both Iraq and Vietnam the threats were more existential and they are half a planet away. A better example might be North and South Korea, If NK was not a nuclear threat and did what Hamas has done (not just Oct 7th), would you be giving them the same advice? Should have the west supported SK and should it still be? From your third paragraph can I assume your suggestion is that post Oct 7th Israel does nothing outside their boarders. Then the UN sends some sort of force into Gaza and they fight Hamas and give power to the PA? Wouldn't all those soldiers and UN workers not to mention the PA people be in mortal danger at all times? I do not think they would have any more success defeating Hamas without killing civilian's, so they really could not fight them. Which would mean they would just to accept that on a regular basis and as often as Hamas could they would be attacked and killed. Are you certain that this would be better than this in the long term? I do not see it as realistically working. I know that Canadian peacekeepers that are targets for Hamas would be extremely unpopular here and likely true the rest of the world. I can not see any foreign government stepping up to fill that role. The comparison to the Korean conflict is apt, and I'm somewhat surprised that you don't conclude that something similar would be achievable - if given a solid effort - with Israel and Palestinians. I believe it absolutely is. Seeing that South Korea manages to hold North Korea at bay, I wonder why Israel wouldn't be able to accomplish something similar with Hamas? Is that a good outcome for Palestinians or anyone ? Short term less people die but I hope we are shooting higher than complete subjugation of a population not to mention an ongoing threat of them starting a war back up at any moment. I mean, I do think it's preferable for people to be under a horrible regime that isn't bombarding them than to be bombarded by a different horrible regime. I don't know how else to put it. Wait Israel is as bad as North Korea? I do not think any of the 20% of the population of Israel who are Palestinians would take that trade. I'm not comparing Israel to North Korea. That was only my first comment (and I was comparing Israel to South Korea, because it was about their military might). South Korea is able to hold off North Korea. Likewise Israel should be able to hold off Hamas. My second comment was about Palestinians getting bombed (by Israel) vs not getting bombed (by Hamas). Despite both Israel and Hamas being horrible regimes, at least Hamas doesn't intend to bomb tens of thousands of Palestinians. The problem with Israel/Hamas is that Hamas doesn't have enough to lose. I think there's merit to the argument that if Hamas had something to lose then it wouldn't really exist, or it would exist in a form that is very different from what we see today. Hamas like cults exist in most of the world. You’re again going back to dangerously close to really it’s their own fault they were raped and murdered. Do you think Israel has the right to exist where it is now?
In terms of proportion of population there are not cults like Hamas in most of the world, no. You are wrong. 20000-25000 out of 2.5 million is a lot.
Netanyahu is partially responsible for Israel getting attacked by Hamas, yes. That's an obvious point.
The question that you asked is a bit silly but I'm going to assume you mean whether I believe Israelis have a legitimacy to live in Israel, and the answer is yes.
|
|
|
The same reasoning that we apply to Israel can be applied to Hamas. If we argue that Hamas uses human shields and that Hamas can only be destroyed if we accept many civilian casualties, then we have to make an effort to turn this reasoning around and see if it can apply to the perspective of Hamas.
If Hamas believes that the State of Israel uses Jewish people as a shield (or even as a weapon) against Palestinians, then they could argue that the only way to destroy the State of Israel is to accept many Jewish civilian casualties. This would be the exact same reasoning in reverse, and we can test the validity of this reasoning.
Are Palestinians being oppressed by the State of Israel? Yes.
Have all peaceful resolutions failed? Yes.
Have all violent methods failed? Yes.
Demonstrably, as long as we accept the assumption that civilian casualties can (or must) be accepted, the reasoning holds up.
From the (pro-Israel) perspective:
Is there a different solution that doesn't involve the killing of many Palestinian civilians?
Now we apply the same question to Hamas' perspective:
Is there a different solution that doesn't involve the killing of many Jewish civilians?
Is it becoming clear as to why I think Israel doesn't have a moral high ground?
The reasoning from Hamas' perspective is obviously wrong. It's obvious to just about everyone here. And yet somehow, if we apply the same reasoning to Israel, it's suddenly not wrong?
|
|
|
On November 21 2023 22:40 MaGic~PhiL wrote:
So just a short question without evading (to anyone but in particular to JimmiC):
1) Who do you think suffered more in this conflict (beginning with ~1947/48) Israel or Palestine/Gaza?
2) If you would be willing to give % who is at fault for this conflict starting/ worsening/ still going on.. how would you weight them on Israel & Palestine?
1)
I don't think you have sufficiently shown why "total suffering per population" is a useful metric when assessing morality and I think people have sufficiently shown why this is a poor metric with comparisons like North/South Korea, but for the sake of giving you the benefit of the doubt, of course Palestinians have suffered more when you set the time bounds to "the moment after Israel was formally given land" lol. I also think its perhaps a smidge dishonest to pretend the Holocaust was not a large consideration in the formation of Israel.
Its not like this is some kind of cage match where all Palestinian suffering relates to Jews and all Jew suffering relates to Palestinians. Antisemitism is profoundly common among Palestinians, but Jews had experienced recent suffering unrelated to Palestinians around that time in history.
Additionally, the sweet nectar of shared punishment is a temptation of Middle Eastern nations can't help but gobble up in issues pertaining to Jews. When ethnic cleansing of Jews in Yemen and other nations are brought up, folks are quick to say "yeah but they were a response to the 1948 formation of Israel and since Israel is definitely morally bankrupt, this ethnic cleansing can't be viewed in a vacuum". But it strangely fails to consider the fact that shared punishment is still extremely morally negative. I need to be entirely clear that the "Israel-inspired" ethnic cleansing that followed the formation of Israel was deeply unethical and it is another example in history of Jews being treated as a single entity.
Prior to the formation of Israel, its not like it was valentines day in the Jew-Muslim household. It was alright, but not great. And in 1948, Jews were shown just how vulnerable they were in all of the neighboring countries. That sweet nectar is too good for neighboring nations to resist, so they will always leap at an opportunity to punish Jewish citizens for the crimes of Israel. Jews in the Middle East need a bunker they can crawl into to protect themselves from whenever a shared punishment opportunity arises in other countries. Israel is that, and Israel needs to be a thing, so its more so a matter of what ought to be done to help reduce Palestinian suffering.
2)
Palestinians = 0%;
I am only giving Palestinians a 0% rating here because I am leveraging ethics borrowed from children who were raised in little KKK communities in the US. It is worth mentioning not just anti-Israel but anti-all-Jew philosophy is depressingly widespread among Palestinians and we have recent polls indicating some pretty tragic perspectives. But they are not being given a fair opportunity to be good people, so I give them a pass.
All of the other guilt comes from Israel, Iran, Yemen, Qatar, Egypt, and all of the other Muslim nations that encouraged Palestinians to stand and fight Israel in the events following October 7. Muslim nations treat Palestinians as less than humans by encouraging them to function as weapons and declining to encourage relocation to lessen their suffering. Regardless of how you view Israel's actions, it is totally messed up to discourage people to flee a war zone. All major wars, like Ukraine, lead to widespread efforts to encourage people to leave and seek shelter elsewhere. These are just people, not some kinda "God's Angels" forged from light to vanquish demons. It is wildly inappropriate for nations to encourage this "stay and fight" bullshit and for Egypt's leadership to call it a "shared Arab struggle". They weaponize an entire population and deprive them of their humanity.
And just to be entirely clear, Israel, a a participant in war, is morally failing and doing a lot of really bad shit. But they are not the only ones inflicting suffering on Palestinians. The weaponization of refugees is completely and totally messed up and deeply unethical. Many Muslim nations each share a part of the blame for the role they play in discouraging migration and encouraging martyrdom.
|
On November 22 2023 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 07:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Equating Israel and Hamas is definitely lazy at best and dishonest at worst. Its easy to use the standard muddying strategies of "but they both kill people and want the other one totally removed from the same piece of land", but they are simply not the same. There is value in remembering there are enormous differences between the stated goals, methods used, and the way they each provide for and protect their citizens. Hamas's perspectives on "martyrdom" and "should an elected government provide for their citizens" are pretty notable differences.
Regardless, the comparison isn't a worthwhile use of anyone's time. It is just a long chain of people saying "yeah but" in response to each other. It doesn't need to be a fighting game tier list. So while I don't think there is value in creating some data table comparing the 2, it is for sure worth pointing out they are not morally equivalent. Why is it lazy and dishonest to compare Israel and Hamas? What the IDF has been doing in the last few weeks is an absolute atrocity, I can only call it a crime against humanity.
I said equate, not compare. I see your location is listed as Austria and I have no idea how much English you know, and I am not trying to be rude here or whatever, but equate means they are identical. Compare indicates they have similarities. I agree they can of course be compared. But equated, absolutely not. That's why I said Israel kills people and is unethical and whatnot. They are morally imperfect in a range of ways, but they don't even approach the summary of the stated goals of Hamas.
|
On November 22 2023 07:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 07:34 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 07:28 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 07:19 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2023 07:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 06:54 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 06:36 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 06:34 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 06:31 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 05:29 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
The comparison to the Korean conflict is apt, and I'm somewhat surprised that you don't conclude that something similar would be achievable - if given a solid effort - with Israel and Palestinians. I believe it absolutely is. Seeing that South Korea manages to hold North Korea at bay, I wonder why Israel wouldn't be able to accomplish something similar with Hamas? Is that a good outcome for Palestinians or anyone ? Short term less people die but I hope we are shooting higher than complete subjugation of a population not to mention an ongoing threat of them starting a war back up at any moment. I mean, I do think it's preferable for people to be under a horrible regime that isn't bombarding them than to be bombarded by a different horrible regime. I don't know how else to put it. Wait Israel is as bad as North Korea? I do not think any of the 20% of the population of Israel who are Palestinians would take that trade. I'm not comparing Israel to North Korea. That was only my first comment (and I was comparing Israel to South Korea, because it was about their military might). South Korea is able to hold off North Korea. Likewise Israel should be able to hold off Hamas. My second comment was about Palestinians getting bombed (by Israel) vs not getting bombed (by Hamas). Despite both Israel and Hamas being horrible regimes, at least Hamas doesn't intend to bomb tens of thousands of Palestinians. No they kill them much more personally and only if they disobey their perverted version of religion. So far Israel is killing lots, but we have no idea how many are civilians vs fighters and we may never know. We also have no idea how many of the dead were killed directly by Hamas, either because they wouldn’t flee or because their rocket didn’t make it to Israel. Israel is not close to the same level of Hamas it is not remotely comparable. This is my huge issue with many of the people here you are starting from a position of Israel is evil and all their actions are evil with evil motivations. I start from the position that Israel is a democracy with all the good and bad that comes with it. The people there are a med as well and terrified and angry, as most of us would be if a friend, family member or someone we knew was killed by Hamas in the manner it happened. If this had happened to any other democratic country but Israel these are not the assumptions that would be made about them. Its possible for Hamas to be worse then Israel and for Israel to still be 'evil'. And if anyone other then Israel was doing what Israel is doing now the world would complain a whole hell of a lot more. Sure it is, a whole bunch of things are possible, such as much of what the far right believes. Just in cases that do not involve Israel people on the left do not treat the possibilities as fact. There is a shocking amount of evil stuff going on in the world every day, it just does not get the media attention. But this is all just stuff to distract from what are the non evil things for Israel to do and actually walking down that path to where it gets us. I don't understand why people keep saying this. Israel has plenty of other ways. We've been talking about this endlessly, and yet the same people keep returning to the same argument over and over again. Israel is not a mindless actor, they have agency. They don't have to keep doing what they're doing. If Israel has to accept casualties as a consequence of Hamas existing, then that might just be what it means to take the high road in this conflict. Until Israel is a force for good and not evil (I'm alluding to the oppression of Palestinians) I don't believe they're in a position to complain and argue that they have a right to kill thousands of Palestinians. Of course they have some agency, but not full agency. It is not black and white. I do not think that creating a DMZ around Israel and cutting Palestinians off from the world is at all a better solution, for anyone except maybe Hamas. My general point that seems to be getting missed is there is not a easy good decision for Israel to make that allows them to continue to live safe and free. Doing what they were doing before Oct 7th was also not considered good and it did not stop Oct 7th. So should they be more on the walls, listening, and whatever else they were up too? Less and just deal with the occasional massacre? Not exist at all?
Israel should stop oppressing Palestinians and instead treat them like human beings. I don't believe there can be a fair discussion of what else should be done until that is the case.
|
On November 22 2023 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 07:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Equating Israel and Hamas is definitely lazy at best and dishonest at worst. Its easy to use the standard muddying strategies of "but they both kill people and want the other one totally removed from the same piece of land", but they are simply not the same. There is value in remembering there are enormous differences between the stated goals, methods used, and the way they each provide for and protect their citizens. Hamas's perspectives on "martyrdom" and "should an elected government provide for their citizens" are pretty notable differences.
Regardless, the comparison isn't a worthwhile use of anyone's time. It is just a long chain of people saying "yeah but" in response to each other. It doesn't need to be a fighting game tier list. So while I don't think there is value in creating some data table comparing the 2, it is for sure worth pointing out they are not morally equivalent. Why is it lazy and dishonest to compare Israel and Hamas? What the IDF has been doing in the last few weeks is an absolute atrocity, I can only call it a crime against humanity. I said equate, not compare. I see your location is listed as Austria and I have no idea how much English you know, and I am not trying to be rude here or whatever, but equate means they are identical. Compare indicates they have similarities. I agree they can of course be compared. But equated, absolutely not. That's why I said Israel kills people and is unethical and whatnot. They are morally imperfect in a range of ways, but they don't even approach the summary of the stated goals of Hamas.
I'm not convinced anymore that the IDF can't be equated to Hamas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On November 22 2023 08:00 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:On November 22 2023 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 07:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Equating Israel and Hamas is definitely lazy at best and dishonest at worst. Its easy to use the standard muddying strategies of "but they both kill people and want the other one totally removed from the same piece of land", but they are simply not the same. There is value in remembering there are enormous differences between the stated goals, methods used, and the way they each provide for and protect their citizens. Hamas's perspectives on "martyrdom" and "should an elected government provide for their citizens" are pretty notable differences.
Regardless, the comparison isn't a worthwhile use of anyone's time. It is just a long chain of people saying "yeah but" in response to each other. It doesn't need to be a fighting game tier list. So while I don't think there is value in creating some data table comparing the 2, it is for sure worth pointing out they are not morally equivalent. Why is it lazy and dishonest to compare Israel and Hamas? What the IDF has been doing in the last few weeks is an absolute atrocity, I can only call it a crime against humanity. I said equate, not compare. I see your location is listed as Austria and I have no idea how much English you know, and I am not trying to be rude here or whatever, but equate means they are identical. Compare indicates they have similarities. I agree they can of course be compared. But equated, absolutely not. That's why I said Israel kills people and is unethical and whatnot. They are morally imperfect in a range of ways, but they don't even approach the summary of the stated goals of Hamas. I'm not convinced anymore that the IDF can't be equated to Hamas.
Hamas advocates for killing all Jews on the planet. IDF does not advocate for killing all Muslims on the planet. Are we working with different assumptions here, or are you saying global genocide is morally equivalent to the IDF? Like I said, this is a non-stimulating discussion so I will end it here, but I just wanted to clarify what I see as a critical distinction and verify you are under the same impression when assessing IDF ethics.
|
On November 22 2023 08:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 08:00 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:On November 22 2023 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 07:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Equating Israel and Hamas is definitely lazy at best and dishonest at worst. Its easy to use the standard muddying strategies of "but they both kill people and want the other one totally removed from the same piece of land", but they are simply not the same. There is value in remembering there are enormous differences between the stated goals, methods used, and the way they each provide for and protect their citizens. Hamas's perspectives on "martyrdom" and "should an elected government provide for their citizens" are pretty notable differences.
Regardless, the comparison isn't a worthwhile use of anyone's time. It is just a long chain of people saying "yeah but" in response to each other. It doesn't need to be a fighting game tier list. So while I don't think there is value in creating some data table comparing the 2, it is for sure worth pointing out they are not morally equivalent. Why is it lazy and dishonest to compare Israel and Hamas? What the IDF has been doing in the last few weeks is an absolute atrocity, I can only call it a crime against humanity. I said equate, not compare. I see your location is listed as Austria and I have no idea how much English you know, and I am not trying to be rude here or whatever, but equate means they are identical. Compare indicates they have similarities. I agree they can of course be compared. But equated, absolutely not. That's why I said Israel kills people and is unethical and whatnot. They are morally imperfect in a range of ways, but they don't even approach the summary of the stated goals of Hamas. I'm not convinced anymore that the IDF can't be equated to Hamas. Which one is following the rules of war and which one is not? It is super easy tell them apart. Why do people think it is only a body count issue? If that was the case the Allies are one of the worst organizations of all time.
The Allies committed many atrocities in WW2. Many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
