Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 124

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.

On November 27 2023 15:00 Mohdoo wrote:

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:


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 18:27 Magic Powers wrote:


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 28 2023 01:21 RvB wrote:

So how do you do A without removing them by force?

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.

On November 27 2023 16:07 Salazarz wrote:


How about Israel stops colonizing Palestine and killing Palestinians.

On November 27 2023 16:42 WombaT wrote:

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.

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.

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.

On November 28 2023 06:32 Mohdoo wrote:


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



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.

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.