|
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 26 2023 18:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Cerebrate1 with the "I'm against evil people" hot take again. It must be a tough life siding against comic book villains and having to defend that point of view against people who think that maybe other paths out of the conflict are more likely to materialize. No, Hamas has to surrender, there is no other way, and until then tens of thousands of civilians must die. It's the only way.
Isn't Cerebrate1 saying Hamas surrendering directly prevents the civilian casualties?
In the absence of Hamas surrendering, there is a clear incentive to limit the capabilities of an organization who is focused on killing all Jews. I understand we disagree on the point of preventing additional attacks because you hold a more absolute pacifism perspective than I do, but I think we can sidestep that distinction. Taking a few steps back, we can safely say "If Hamas does not surrender, it is reasonable to try to reduce the likelihood Hamas will be able to commit atrocities like October 7.
Since Hamas has indicated they fully intend to repeat October 7, and they have reiterated a 2-state solution would change nothing and still require all Jews to be killed, I am sure you agree reducing the chances of successful attacks is desirable. You of course disagree with IDF's post-October 7 actions. And probably Pre-October 7 as well.
It wouldn't be reasonable for me to expect you or anyone else to give a technical answer to the question of "what should be done" about Hamas. Its not your realm of expertise as far as I know and you aren't tasked with the responsibility. Its not your problem to solve. When I have posed the question of "Ok, so what should they do instead?" to you, and everyone else here, it isn't that I am expecting some genius solution the world has been unable to think of. I am always super curious and want to learn about how other people think, and that is the main reason I ask. It isn't that I "win" the discussion if you don't manage to outperform our planet's diplomats. I'm still the same sack of shit I was yesterday and the same sack of shit I'll be tomorrow.
There is one distinction I think is worth making though: There is no "do nothing" or "wait and see" option for Israel. It isn't an option for Israel's government to simply do nothing. Even if we ignore the responsibilities of government and all that jazz, they'd just get voted out if they did nothing. Israel will do something and the question is simply "what will they do". I think it is unreasonable to indicate doing nothing is realistic, even in an ivory tower'esque conversation, because they'd just get voted out by someone who would represent a pendulum swing in the opposite direction. This is my long way of saying "in reality, doing nothing is not only a hard sell, it is impossible and can't be described as a viable course of action in good faith". "Israel will do whatever it can to prevent Hamas from achieving their goals" should be considered a fixed parameter. It is not a variable. The variables are the specifics of how that is done.
Iran and Qatar disarming/ejecting Hamas internally is by far the closest to a pacifist solution we could ever dream of. Nothing else comes close.
|
On November 27 2023 15:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2023 18:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Cerebrate1 with the "I'm against evil people" hot take again. It must be a tough life siding against comic book villains and having to defend that point of view against people who think that maybe other paths out of the conflict are more likely to materialize. No, Hamas has to surrender, there is no other way, and until then tens of thousands of civilians must die. It's the only way. Iran and Qatar disarming/ejecting Hamas internally is by far the closest to a pacifist solution we could ever dream of. Nothing else comes close.
How about Israel stops colonizing Palestine and killing Palestinians.
|
Northern Ireland26739 Posts
On November 27 2023 15:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2023 18:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Cerebrate1 with the "I'm against evil people" hot take again. It must be a tough life siding against comic book villains and having to defend that point of view against people who think that maybe other paths out of the conflict are more likely to materialize. No, Hamas has to surrender, there is no other way, and until then tens of thousands of civilians must die. It's the only way. Isn't Cerebrate1 saying Hamas surrendering directly prevents the civilian casualties? In the absence of Hamas surrendering, there is a clear incentive to limit the capabilities of an organization who is focused on killing all Jews. I understand we disagree on the point of preventing additional attacks because you hold a more absolute pacifism perspective than I do, but I think we can sidestep that distinction. Taking a few steps back, we can safely say "If Hamas does not surrender, it is reasonable to try to reduce the likelihood Hamas will be able to commit atrocities like October 7. Since Hamas has indicated they fully intend to repeat October 7, and they have reiterated a 2-state solution would change nothing and still require all Jews to be killed, I am sure you agree reducing the chances of successful attacks is desirable. You of course disagree with IDF's post-October 7 actions. And probably Pre-October 7 as well. It wouldn't be reasonable for me to expect you or anyone else to give a technical answer to the question of "what should be done" about Hamas. Its not your realm of expertise as far as I know and you aren't tasked with the responsibility. Its not your problem to solve. When I have posed the question of "Ok, so what should they do instead?" to you, and everyone else here, it isn't that I am expecting some genius solution the world has been unable to think of. I am always super curious and want to learn about how other people think, and that is the main reason I ask. It isn't that I "win" the discussion if you don't manage to outperform our planet's diplomats. I'm still the same sack of shit I was yesterday and the same sack of shit I'll be tomorrow. There is one distinction I think is worth making though: There is no "do nothing" or "wait and see" option for Israel. It isn't an option for Israel's government to simply do nothing. Even if we ignore the responsibilities of government and all that jazz, they'd just get voted out if they did nothing. Israel will do something and the question is simply "what will they do". I think it is unreasonable to indicate doing nothing is realistic, even in an ivory tower'esque conversation, because they'd just get voted out by someone who would represent a pendulum swing in the opposite direction. This is my long way of saying "in reality, doing nothing is not only a hard sell, it is impossible and can't be described as a viable course of action in good faith". "Israel will do whatever it can to prevent Hamas from achieving their goals" should be considered a fixed parameter. It is not a variable. The variables are the specifics of how that is done. Iran and Qatar disarming/ejecting Hamas internally is by far the closest to a pacifist solution we could ever dream of. Nothing else comes close.
There are at least some slivers of a thawing and move to normalise relations with various regional players in recent times. Although it is a slow process indeed, why not throw a bone in there and stop/revert the settlement process?
Realistically yes it would be politically untenable not to act forcefully against Hamas, I don’t see that happening.
But all stick, no carrot doesn’t seem to exactly be improving the situation either, and it’s equally unlikely that Israel would be able to bring a big enough stick to permanently solve the problem without various international interventions.
|
On November 27 2023 16:07 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2023 15:00 Mohdoo wrote:On November 26 2023 18:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Cerebrate1 with the "I'm against evil people" hot take again. It must be a tough life siding against comic book villains and having to defend that point of view against people who think that maybe other paths out of the conflict are more likely to materialize. No, Hamas has to surrender, there is no other way, and until then tens of thousands of civilians must die. It's the only way. Iran and Qatar disarming/ejecting Hamas internally is by far the closest to a pacifist solution we could ever dream of. Nothing else comes close. How about Israel stops colonizing Palestine and killing Palestinians.
This is exactly the problem. Several people here, including Cerebrate and Mohdoo, among others, just don't ever realize that their "solution" which includes destroying Hamas never also includes liberating Palestinians. For some reason they consider it a solution regardless. It's not a solution though, and it can't be a solution. It's not even a stepping stone to a solution.
And Mohdoo even keeps referring to my ideas as pacifist. That says basically everything, as if Israel could only choose between mass destruction or sitting on their hands, and nothing in between. I'm not a pacifist if I'm against this mindless bloodshed. What I'm asking for is only the most remote sense of reason. Letting people live, and letting them live freely, that is not pacifist. It's a liberal position. It's what EVERY liberal should demand.
|
On November 27 2023 18:27 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2023 16:07 Salazarz wrote:On November 27 2023 15:00 Mohdoo wrote:On November 26 2023 18:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Cerebrate1 with the "I'm against evil people" hot take again. It must be a tough life siding against comic book villains and having to defend that point of view against people who think that maybe other paths out of the conflict are more likely to materialize. No, Hamas has to surrender, there is no other way, and until then tens of thousands of civilians must die. It's the only way. Iran and Qatar disarming/ejecting Hamas internally is by far the closest to a pacifist solution we could ever dream of. Nothing else comes close. How about Israel stops colonizing Palestine and killing Palestinians. This is exactly the problem. Several people here, including Cerebrate and Mohdoo, among others, just don't ever realize that their "solution" which includes destroying Hamas never also includes liberating Palestinians. For some reason they consider it a solution regardless. It's not a solution though, and it can't be a solution. It's not even a stepping stone to a solution. And Mohdoo even keeps referring to my ideas as pacifist. That says basically everything, as if Israel could only choose between mass destruction or sitting on their hands, and nothing in between. I'm not a pacifist if I'm against this mindless bloodshed. What I'm asking for is only the most remote sense of reason. Letting people live, and letting them live freely, that is not pacifist. It's a liberal position. It's what EVERY liberal should demand.
For people who are still supporting Israel at this point the solution includes ethnic cleansing. But it's not necessarily something that people are comfortable saying, to his credit Mohdoo is. It's much easier to more or less avoid talking about the Palestinians' future, which is why this is the attitude that you encounter most often.
|
On November 27 2023 18:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2023 18:27 Magic Powers wrote:On November 27 2023 16:07 Salazarz wrote:On November 27 2023 15:00 Mohdoo wrote:On November 26 2023 18:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Cerebrate1 with the "I'm against evil people" hot take again. It must be a tough life siding against comic book villains and having to defend that point of view against people who think that maybe other paths out of the conflict are more likely to materialize. No, Hamas has to surrender, there is no other way, and until then tens of thousands of civilians must die. It's the only way. Iran and Qatar disarming/ejecting Hamas internally is by far the closest to a pacifist solution we could ever dream of. Nothing else comes close. How about Israel stops colonizing Palestine and killing Palestinians. This is exactly the problem. Several people here, including Cerebrate and Mohdoo, among others, just don't ever realize that their "solution" which includes destroying Hamas never also includes liberating Palestinians. For some reason they consider it a solution regardless. It's not a solution though, and it can't be a solution. It's not even a stepping stone to a solution. And Mohdoo even keeps referring to my ideas as pacifist. That says basically everything, as if Israel could only choose between mass destruction or sitting on their hands, and nothing in between. I'm not a pacifist if I'm against this mindless bloodshed. What I'm asking for is only the most remote sense of reason. Letting people live, and letting them live freely, that is not pacifist. It's a liberal position. It's what EVERY liberal should demand. For people who are still supporting Israel at this point the solution includes ethnic cleansing. But it's not necessarily something that people are comfortable saying, to his credit Mohdoo is. It's much easier to more or less avoid talking about the Palestinians' future, which is why this is the attitude that you encounter most often.
As I've been reading the responses in this thread (which is less pro-Israel than the general western consensus), I'm starting to think you're right with that assessment. For some people there can only be a path forward if it doesn't involve any harm whatsoever to Israel's citizens. Meanwhile they accept continued deaths and suffering of Palestinians on that exact same path. No sacrifice can be made by Israel, and that's why people keep asking what other path we have. When presented with a path that involves concessions by Israel, people still think it's impossible simply "because Hamas". Hamas Hamas Hamas. As if Hamas only exists in a vacuum.
I've been noticing this anti-Palestinian double standard in many comments, and I find it tremendously disappointing because it boils down to the same bias that western countries applied when they openly subjugated "lesser races". Maybe it shouldn't surprise me though, because it took decades of work to align the treatment and perceived value of all ethnic groups in each country, and even today it's still work in progress.
People need to understand that Hamas, evil as they are, have a reason for their evil actions. Israel is horribly oppressive. While the actions of the worst extremists are not justified, their hatred for Israel absolutely is. This deep hatred wasn't born out of nothing, and it won't go away if or when Hamas disappears. Therefore the root cause of the hatred has to be eliminated (i.e. the oppression of Palestinians has to end) before there can be any hope of lasting peace. You can't make peace with people who rightfully hate your guts.
|
On November 27 2023 15:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2023 18:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Cerebrate1 with the "I'm against evil people" hot take again. It must be a tough life siding against comic book villains and having to defend that point of view against people who think that maybe other paths out of the conflict are more likely to materialize. No, Hamas has to surrender, there is no other way, and until then tens of thousands of civilians must die. It's the only way. "If Hamas does not surrender, it is reasonable to try to reduce the likelihood Hamas will be able to commit atrocities like October 7.
I imagine his issue is less so labelling Hamas as problematic and more so this framing. If what Hamas did on Oct 7 was an atrocity, then what on Earth do we call what the IDF has done for 75 years?
No one is against removing Hamas from the equation, the problems are
A) How we go about doing that (instead of carpet bombing a civilian dense area)
B) What we do beyond that (i.e. how do we reform Israeli government)
For my part, I'm confused why we think inflicting further terror on people will reduce cooperation by Gazans towards Hamas instead of breeding more resistance fighters.
|
|
|
On November 28 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2023 14:55 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 27 2023 08:05 JimmiC wrote:On November 27 2023 08:02 MaGic~PhiL wrote:
a stabil socity and probably solid foster parents?
for a child whose parents die in Gaza there is poverty, no meaning & unfortunately for some Hamas..
Not saying this isnt tragic for that little girl. But please let's not act as if this isnt sth that happens constantly in Gaza/Palestine.. Can you source the bolded? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67121414Apparently it is common enough for wcnsf (wounded child no surviving family) to be an understandable acronym for health personell operating there. Of course it is happening. No one is acting like it is not happening.
Literally in this thread I was challenged for bringing up the Gazan Health Ministry numbers and recieved a very Biden-Esque response.
I can concede that the overwhelming majority of people are a little more aware of the death tolls we're seeing, but I cannot understand why this is determined acceptable.
|
On November 27 2023 23:55 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2023 15:00 Mohdoo wrote:On November 26 2023 18:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Cerebrate1 with the "I'm against evil people" hot take again. It must be a tough life siding against comic book villains and having to defend that point of view against people who think that maybe other paths out of the conflict are more likely to materialize. No, Hamas has to surrender, there is no other way, and until then tens of thousands of civilians must die. It's the only way. "If Hamas does not surrender, it is reasonable to try to reduce the likelihood Hamas will be able to commit atrocities like October 7. I imagine his issue is less so labelling Hamas as problematic and more so this framing. If what Hamas did on Oct 7 was an atrocity, then what on Earth do we call what the IDF has done for 75 years? No one is against removing Hamas from the equation, the problems are A) How we go about doing that (instead of carpet bombing a civilian dense area) B) What we do beyond that (i.e. how do we reform Israeli government) For my part, I'm confused why we think inflicting further terror on people will reduce cooperation by Gazans towards Hamas instead of breeding more resistance fighters.
So how do you do A without removing them by force?
|
On November 28 2023 01:21 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2023 23:55 Cricketer12 wrote:On November 27 2023 15:00 Mohdoo wrote:On November 26 2023 18:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Cerebrate1 with the "I'm against evil people" hot take again. It must be a tough life siding against comic book villains and having to defend that point of view against people who think that maybe other paths out of the conflict are more likely to materialize. No, Hamas has to surrender, there is no other way, and until then tens of thousands of civilians must die. It's the only way. "If Hamas does not surrender, it is reasonable to try to reduce the likelihood Hamas will be able to commit atrocities like October 7. I imagine his issue is less so labelling Hamas as problematic and more so this framing. If what Hamas did on Oct 7 was an atrocity, then what on Earth do we call what the IDF has done for 75 years? No one is against removing Hamas from the equation, the problems are A) How we go about doing that (instead of carpet bombing a civilian dense area) B) What we do beyond that (i.e. how do we reform Israeli government) For my part, I'm confused why we think inflicting further terror on people will reduce cooperation by Gazans towards Hamas instead of breeding more resistance fighters. So how do you do A without removing them by force? There is force that isn't bombing entire city blocks?
|
On November 28 2023 01:21 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2023 23:55 Cricketer12 wrote:On November 27 2023 15:00 Mohdoo wrote:On November 26 2023 18:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Cerebrate1 with the "I'm against evil people" hot take again. It must be a tough life siding against comic book villains and having to defend that point of view against people who think that maybe other paths out of the conflict are more likely to materialize. No, Hamas has to surrender, there is no other way, and until then tens of thousands of civilians must die. It's the only way. "If Hamas does not surrender, it is reasonable to try to reduce the likelihood Hamas will be able to commit atrocities like October 7. I imagine his issue is less so labelling Hamas as problematic and more so this framing. If what Hamas did on Oct 7 was an atrocity, then what on Earth do we call what the IDF has done for 75 years? No one is against removing Hamas from the equation, the problems are A) How we go about doing that (instead of carpet bombing a civilian dense area) B) What we do beyond that (i.e. how do we reform Israeli government) For my part, I'm confused why we think inflicting further terror on people will reduce cooperation by Gazans towards Hamas instead of breeding more resistance fighters. So how do you do A without removing them by force?
You reduce their relevancy. Give Gaza breathing room, don't bomb the fucking schools so you can educate their children. Give Palestinians Self-Determination so they feel there are options aside from Hamas and IDF bombs.
In the immediate, if you think Hamas is that big a deal you send in Spec Ops.
I do have to question how bizarre this response is. In your mind are Palestinian lives valued less than Israeli lives, I'm really confused why only Hamas' terrorism seems to matter here.
The atrocities we see don't help Palestinians, they don't help Israeli civilians, they don't help Jews, they don't help Muslims. The push into Gaza doesn't help Jews or Israeli civilians either.
|
So the truce may have been extended but the conflict is not going to end apparently.
|
On November 28 2023 01:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2023 01:21 RvB wrote:On November 27 2023 23:55 Cricketer12 wrote:On November 27 2023 15:00 Mohdoo wrote:On November 26 2023 18:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Cerebrate1 with the "I'm against evil people" hot take again. It must be a tough life siding against comic book villains and having to defend that point of view against people who think that maybe other paths out of the conflict are more likely to materialize. No, Hamas has to surrender, there is no other way, and until then tens of thousands of civilians must die. It's the only way. "If Hamas does not surrender, it is reasonable to try to reduce the likelihood Hamas will be able to commit atrocities like October 7. I imagine his issue is less so labelling Hamas as problematic and more so this framing. If what Hamas did on Oct 7 was an atrocity, then what on Earth do we call what the IDF has done for 75 years? No one is against removing Hamas from the equation, the problems are A) How we go about doing that (instead of carpet bombing a civilian dense area) B) What we do beyond that (i.e. how do we reform Israeli government) For my part, I'm confused why we think inflicting further terror on people will reduce cooperation by Gazans towards Hamas instead of breeding more resistance fighters. So how do you do A without removing them by force? There is force that isn't bombing entire city blocks?
Many (not necessarily in the thread) call for a ceasefire. A ceasefire now means Hamas stays in charge of the Gaza Strip. If you do not want that then you'd need to find a way to remove them without force. If you're of the opinion that it's okay for Israel to remove Hamas militarily but with less bombing then I can understand that.
On November 28 2023 02:11 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2023 01:21 RvB wrote:On November 27 2023 23:55 Cricketer12 wrote:On November 27 2023 15:00 Mohdoo wrote:On November 26 2023 18:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Cerebrate1 with the "I'm against evil people" hot take again. It must be a tough life siding against comic book villains and having to defend that point of view against people who think that maybe other paths out of the conflict are more likely to materialize. No, Hamas has to surrender, there is no other way, and until then tens of thousands of civilians must die. It's the only way. "If Hamas does not surrender, it is reasonable to try to reduce the likelihood Hamas will be able to commit atrocities like October 7. I imagine his issue is less so labelling Hamas as problematic and more so this framing. If what Hamas did on Oct 7 was an atrocity, then what on Earth do we call what the IDF has done for 75 years? No one is against removing Hamas from the equation, the problems are A) How we go about doing that (instead of carpet bombing a civilian dense area) B) What we do beyond that (i.e. how do we reform Israeli government) For my part, I'm confused why we think inflicting further terror on people will reduce cooperation by Gazans towards Hamas instead of breeding more resistance fighters. So how do you do A without removing them by force? You reduce their relevancy. Give Gaza breathing room, don't bomb the fucking schools so you can educate their children. Give Palestinians Self-Determination so they feel there are options aside from Hamas and IDF bombs. In the immediate, if you think Hamas is that big a deal you send in Spec Ops. I do have to question how bizarre this response is. In your mind are Palestinian lives valued less than Israeli lives, I'm really confused why only Hamas' terrorism seems to matter here. The atrocities we see don't help Palestinians, they don't help Israeli civilians, they don't help Jews, they don't help Muslims. The push into Gaza doesn't help Jews or Israeli civilians either.
What you're asking for was the status quo in Gaza. Access to education and enrollment is relatively high. The problem is that the curriculum contains anti semitism and glorifies violence. Israel has demanded this to be changed for years but neither Hamas nor the PA have done this. Hamas have also ruled the Strip by themselves for a while now and Israel was already loosening the blockade somewhat after Hamas signalled they were becoming less violent. That was basically their strategy. Let in more aid and give out more work permits to give Gazans and Hamas more of a stake in peace.
What's bizarre is jumping to all kinds of conclusions about what I think and value. You can't read my mind so don't. You're free to ask if you want my opinion on something. I asked my question because my personal opinion is that there's no other option but a ground invasion to remove Hamas from power. Evidently not everyone shares my opinion so I want to know what the arguments are.
|
On November 28 2023 03:46 RvB wrote:
What you're asking for was the status quo in Gaza. Access to education and enrollment is relatively high. The problem is that the curriculum contains anti semitism and glorifies violence. Israel has demanded this to be changed for years but neither Hamas nor the PA have done this. Hamas have also ruled the Strip by themselves for a while now and Israel was already loosening the blockade somewhat after Hamas signalled they were becoming less violent. That was basically their strategy. Let in more aid and give out more work permits to give Gazans and Hamas more of a stake in peace.
Have you let them know that this was their strategy? Cause when they talk about their strategy that's not really the kind of things they say, instead they're more talking about how Hamas is good for them because it delegitimizes the palestinian cause and creates a division between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority that makes it less likely for Palestine to become a state. Then they draft scenario outcomes for the current situation in Gaza and they write that a scenario where the PA gets to run Gaza is worse for them than a scenario where Hamas can continue to run Gaza for that same reason. They seem a lot more concerned with Palestine not existing than they are with giving Palestinians a stake in peace.
I'm also confused about this reaction to Hamas signalling they are becoming less violent that you describe, I mean Mohdoo can tell that they are genocidal maniacs similar to mass shooters from halfway across the globe, but Netanyahu is loosening the blockade because they're saying some nice things? That seems quite naive, I feel like I would be criticizing Netanyahu right now if I believed that.
|
On November 27 2023 16:07 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2023 15:00 Mohdoo wrote:On November 26 2023 18:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Cerebrate1 with the "I'm against evil people" hot take again. It must be a tough life siding against comic book villains and having to defend that point of view against people who think that maybe other paths out of the conflict are more likely to materialize. No, Hamas has to surrender, there is no other way, and until then tens of thousands of civilians must die. It's the only way. Iran and Qatar disarming/ejecting Hamas internally is by far the closest to a pacifist solution we could ever dream of. Nothing else comes close. How about Israel stops colonizing Palestine and killing Palestinians.
I addressed that. Hamas has already responded to that possibility by indicating they will continue to try to replicate October 7 regardless of any concessions Israel makes. They specified Israel occupying any non-zero amount of land is a deal breaker and that they will continue killing Israelis until none are left.
When I compare the population of Israel to the population of Hamas, even if we somehow assumed Iran and Qatar were forced to kill every single member of Hamas, I think that still ends up being a lot less total death.
However, I think we can agree it’s unlikely Iran and Qatar would need to kill every single member.
|
On November 27 2023 16:42 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2023 15:00 Mohdoo wrote:On November 26 2023 18:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Cerebrate1 with the "I'm against evil people" hot take again. It must be a tough life siding against comic book villains and having to defend that point of view against people who think that maybe other paths out of the conflict are more likely to materialize. No, Hamas has to surrender, there is no other way, and until then tens of thousands of civilians must die. It's the only way. Isn't Cerebrate1 saying Hamas surrendering directly prevents the civilian casualties? In the absence of Hamas surrendering, there is a clear incentive to limit the capabilities of an organization who is focused on killing all Jews. I understand we disagree on the point of preventing additional attacks because you hold a more absolute pacifism perspective than I do, but I think we can sidestep that distinction. Taking a few steps back, we can safely say "If Hamas does not surrender, it is reasonable to try to reduce the likelihood Hamas will be able to commit atrocities like October 7. Since Hamas has indicated they fully intend to repeat October 7, and they have reiterated a 2-state solution would change nothing and still require all Jews to be killed, I am sure you agree reducing the chances of successful attacks is desirable. You of course disagree with IDF's post-October 7 actions. And probably Pre-October 7 as well. It wouldn't be reasonable for me to expect you or anyone else to give a technical answer to the question of "what should be done" about Hamas. Its not your realm of expertise as far as I know and you aren't tasked with the responsibility. Its not your problem to solve. When I have posed the question of "Ok, so what should they do instead?" to you, and everyone else here, it isn't that I am expecting some genius solution the world has been unable to think of. I am always super curious and want to learn about how other people think, and that is the main reason I ask. It isn't that I "win" the discussion if you don't manage to outperform our planet's diplomats. I'm still the same sack of shit I was yesterday and the same sack of shit I'll be tomorrow. There is one distinction I think is worth making though: There is no "do nothing" or "wait and see" option for Israel. It isn't an option for Israel's government to simply do nothing. Even if we ignore the responsibilities of government and all that jazz, they'd just get voted out if they did nothing. Israel will do something and the question is simply "what will they do". I think it is unreasonable to indicate doing nothing is realistic, even in an ivory tower'esque conversation, because they'd just get voted out by someone who would represent a pendulum swing in the opposite direction. This is my long way of saying "in reality, doing nothing is not only a hard sell, it is impossible and can't be described as a viable course of action in good faith". "Israel will do whatever it can to prevent Hamas from achieving their goals" should be considered a fixed parameter. It is not a variable. The variables are the specifics of how that is done. Iran and Qatar disarming/ejecting Hamas internally is by far the closest to a pacifist solution we could ever dream of. Nothing else comes close. There are at least some slivers of a thawing and move to normalise relations with various regional players in recent times. Although it is a slow process indeed, why not throw a bone in there and stop/revert the settlement process? Realistically yes it would be politically untenable not to act forcefully against Hamas, I don’t see that happening. But all stick, no carrot doesn’t seem to exactly be improving the situation either, and it’s equally unlikely that Israel would be able to bring a big enough stick to permanently solve the problem without various international interventions.
There is historical precedent showing this is not effective. And you are attributing a level of reason to Hamas that you have a wealth of evidence disproving. It is unclear to me where you are getting this impression from. Can you please help me understand where you are getting this impression of Hamas? Hamas has had numerous interviews and other forms of communication where they have made it clear in 100 different ways that what you are describing is insufficient and would change nothing. If there are interviews or other forms of messaging where Hamas has indicated there are specific conditions for long-term peace other than all Jews being killed, I'd be excited to see that. This would be an enormous shift, and would have needed to happen extremely recently, so I doubt it is true. But I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong.
And just to be clear, I am not saying force is necessary. I am saying some action, whatever it is, is necessary. That action needs to provide Israeli voters with confidence the government is reducing Hamas's ability to attack them.
One of the core components of the government-citizen social contract is the government providing physical protection. That doesn't need to mean shooting people. But if everyone gets together and concludes no non-violent option exists, people need to understand (regardless of ethics), Israel will use violence.
This dynamic is similar to why Hamas using hospitals for military purposes is a war crime. Since war is an awful, terrible shame of humanity, a large number of moral concessions become routine during war. Killing people is widely regarded as unethical, but it is the bread and butter of activities in a war. When a faction uses a hospital for military purposes, their enemy is never going to say "aw shucks, I hadn't considered that. I guess I lose now, since you are able to operate with invincibility from hospitals". It is unethical, but it is a natural reality that we all ought to assume will always be true during a war. That's why the Geneva convention specifies the protected status of hospitals is contingent on non-military use
ART. 19. — The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.
The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.
When a military faction uses a hospital for military purposes, the odds of the enemy attacking that hospital skyrockets. The faction supposedly protecting that hospital is using it as a blood sacrifice. That translates to a decision to use friendly-civilian lives as a means of getting a military advantage. The Geneva convention reflects this generalized logic pathway and can be used to explain why we should assume any nation will use force as a means of providing a feeling of safety to their citizens. And again, this is not me arguing why that logic pathway is ethical. I am indicating why this is a safe assumption and using the Geneva convention to highlight the fact that this is well understood by many people and has been understood for a long time.
So just to reiterate: In the absence of other means of achieving long-term peace, it is unreasonable to pretend there are alternatives. It is essentially self-defined. When you are only given 1 option, that option is the only one, because the number 1 represents a singular thing. And I apologize if I have missed someone indicating the number is larger than 1.
|
On November 28 2023 03:58 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm also confused about this reaction to Hamas signalling they are becoming less violent that you describe, I mean Mohdoo can tell that they are genocidal maniacs similar to mass shooters from halfway across the globe, but Netanyahu is loosening the blockade because they're saying some nice things? That seems quite naive, I feel like I would be criticizing Netanyahu right now if I believed that.
a temporary loosening to facilitate a hostage exchange. once israel feels it has gotten all the hostages out that it can ... let's see what they do. i think some abducted israeli citizens are going to die; i think israel is weighing the probabilities right now.
any jew living in israel must be prepared to pay the ultimate price. is that fair? prolly not. it is , however, the reality of the situation.
|
Northern Ireland26739 Posts
On November 28 2023 06:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2023 16:42 WombaT wrote:On November 27 2023 15:00 Mohdoo wrote:On November 26 2023 18:41 Magic Powers wrote:
Cerebrate1 with the "I'm against evil people" hot take again. It must be a tough life siding against comic book villains and having to defend that point of view against people who think that maybe other paths out of the conflict are more likely to materialize. No, Hamas has to surrender, there is no other way, and until then tens of thousands of civilians must die. It's the only way. Isn't Cerebrate1 saying Hamas surrendering directly prevents the civilian casualties? In the absence of Hamas surrendering, there is a clear incentive to limit the capabilities of an organization who is focused on killing all Jews. I understand we disagree on the point of preventing additional attacks because you hold a more absolute pacifism perspective than I do, but I think we can sidestep that distinction. Taking a few steps back, we can safely say "If Hamas does not surrender, it is reasonable to try to reduce the likelihood Hamas will be able to commit atrocities like October 7. Since Hamas has indicated they fully intend to repeat October 7, and they have reiterated a 2-state solution would change nothing and still require all Jews to be killed, I am sure you agree reducing the chances of successful attacks is desirable. You of course disagree with IDF's post-October 7 actions. And probably Pre-October 7 as well. It wouldn't be reasonable for me to expect you or anyone else to give a technical answer to the question of "what should be done" about Hamas. Its not your realm of expertise as far as I know and you aren't tasked with the responsibility. Its not your problem to solve. When I have posed the question of "Ok, so what should they do instead?" to you, and everyone else here, it isn't that I am expecting some genius solution the world has been unable to think of. I am always super curious and want to learn about how other people think, and that is the main reason I ask. It isn't that I "win" the discussion if you don't manage to outperform our planet's diplomats. I'm still the same sack of shit I was yesterday and the same sack of shit I'll be tomorrow. There is one distinction I think is worth making though: There is no "do nothing" or "wait and see" option for Israel. It isn't an option for Israel's government to simply do nothing. Even if we ignore the responsibilities of government and all that jazz, they'd just get voted out if they did nothing. Israel will do something and the question is simply "what will they do". I think it is unreasonable to indicate doing nothing is realistic, even in an ivory tower'esque conversation, because they'd just get voted out by someone who would represent a pendulum swing in the opposite direction. This is my long way of saying "in reality, doing nothing is not only a hard sell, it is impossible and can't be described as a viable course of action in good faith". "Israel will do whatever it can to prevent Hamas from achieving their goals" should be considered a fixed parameter. It is not a variable. The variables are the specifics of how that is done. Iran and Qatar disarming/ejecting Hamas internally is by far the closest to a pacifist solution we could ever dream of. Nothing else comes close. There are at least some slivers of a thawing and move to normalise relations with various regional players in recent times. Although it is a slow process indeed, why not throw a bone in there and stop/revert the settlement process? Realistically yes it would be politically untenable not to act forcefully against Hamas, I don’t see that happening. But all stick, no carrot doesn’t seem to exactly be improving the situation either, and it’s equally unlikely that Israel would be able to bring a big enough stick to permanently solve the problem without various international interventions. There is historical precedent showing this is not effective. And you are attributing a level of reason to Hamas that you have a wealth of evidence disproving. It is unclear to me where you are getting this impression from. Can you please help me understand where you are getting this impression of Hamas? Hamas has had numerous interviews and other forms of communication where they have made it clear in 100 different ways that what you are describing is insufficient and would change nothing. If there are interviews or other forms of messaging where Hamas has indicated there are specific conditions for long-term peace other than all Jews being killed, I'd be excited to see that. This would be an enormous shift, and would have needed to happen extremely recently, so I doubt it is true. But I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong. And just to be clear, I am not saying force is necessary. I am saying some action, whatever it is, is necessary. That action needs to provide Israeli voters with confidence the government is reducing Hamas's ability to attack them. One of the core components of the government-citizen social contract is the government providing physical protection. That doesn't need to mean shooting people. But if everyone gets together and concludes no non-violent option exists, people need to understand (regardless of ethics), Israel will use violence. This dynamic is similar to why Hamas using hospitals for military purposes is a war crime. Since war is an awful, terrible shame of humanity, a large number of moral concessions become routine during war. Killing people is widely regarded as unethical, but it is the bread and butter of activities in a war. When a faction uses a hospital for military purposes, their enemy is never going to say "aw shucks, I hadn't considered that. I guess I lose now, since you are able to operate with invincibility from hospitals". It is unethical, but it is a natural reality that we all ought to assume will always be true during a war. That's why the Geneva convention specifies the protected status of hospitals is contingent on non-military use Show nested quote +ART. 19. — The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.
The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy. When a military faction uses a hospital for military purposes, the odds of the enemy attacking that hospital skyrockets. The faction supposedly protecting that hospital is using it as a blood sacrifice. That translates to a decision to use friendly-civilian lives as a means of getting a military advantage. The Geneva convention reflects this generalized logic pathway and can be used to explain why we should assume any nation will use force as a means of providing a feeling of safety to their citizens. And again, this is not me arguing why that logic pathway is ethical. I am indicating why this is a safe assumption and using the Geneva convention to highlight the fact that this is well understood by many people and has been understood for a long time.
As per my post I was referring to this as something of an olive branch not to Hamas, but to Israel’s neighbouring states and other regional players. The support of whom Hamas get a lot of mileage from, and whose support you frequently invoke as sustaining Hamas’ capabilities and will. Apologies if that wasn’t made clear.
In addition what resistance Israel faces from farther afield is also very based on the constant encroachment of the settlements.
And finally well, it’s kinda also the right thing to do to not colonise your neighbour so there’s that too.
This isn’t to say do x and you’ll resolve the conflict either, by any means but it does feel a rather obvious concession to make to get certain balls moving anyway. Sure you don’t defang those who don’t believe Israel should exist, but you do move the needle on opposition to Israel that’s predicated on the actions of the state.
Conflicts can be resolved with one side absolutely crushing the other into the dust, or via a more gradual process of compromises and intermediary involvement.
As things stand Israel have basically only given themselves option A to work with via longstanding policies, I’d see it as desirous to at least try
|
This whole "don't attack a hospital" thing can create a false dichotomy. During the 1950 Korean war the US placed mobile hospitals close enough to the front lines that they were within artillery range.
Were the north koreans committing atrocious war crimes when a random bomb hit a "mobile hospital" ? nah.
Was the USA "hiding the military force behind a hospital" and manipulating geneva convention rules to gain a tactical advantage? that's a tough one.... but i say "no" because the hospital was staffed by military personnel and the wounded were soldiers. Also, if the hospital treated enemy soldiers... that's a big sign of good will.
We have to dig a bit deeper into the nitty gritty details of exactly how Hamas is using hospitals to determine if what they are doing is evil. Also, the blanket catch phrase "bombing a hospital is evil" is too simplistic.
On November 28 2023 06:32 Mohdoo wrote:
So just to reiterate: In the absence of other means of achieving long-term peace, it is unreasonable to pretend there are alternatives. It is essentially self-defined. When you are only given 1 option, that option is the only one, because the number 1 represents a singular thing. And I apologize if I have missed someone indicating the number is larger than 1.
Israel must annihilate Hamas. There is no alternative. Some Israelis will also die in the process. Whenever you are dealing with even a single person with a murder-suicide mindset there is always death because even if the murder-suicide person still fails to kill anyone else they will kill themselves. Obviously the murder-suicide minded amongst the Hamas amounts to more than 1 person.
There is going to be lots more death. That's just how it is. Thinking anything else is to live in non-reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
