|
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 December 07 2023 05:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 03:57 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 02:39 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2023 02:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think theres an element of redundancy to this. Theres no point in stating over and over that SA sucks or that Hamas sucks, because there is no disagreement there. Israel has plenty defenders and sympathizers, and thus, there's a debate to be had. And hey, this is fair! Israeli treatment of palestinians is overall a much less black and white topic than saudi treatment of women/dissenting journalists. I also see more discussion on the topic of how to get rid of hamas (hard to know what to do, there) than on the issue of settlements (more universally condemned). There is plenty of disagreement on Hamas, people are just not being direct or logical with their assumptions. Here’s an example, and you have to imagine it is some one other than me asking this question because of… well you know. What should be done to Nazi sympathizers? What should be done to Hamas sympathizers? You would get two completely different answers. But if the question was is Hamas Nazi level bad you would have got a lot of yes’s. (Well that and a lot of Hamas and Nazis are not the exact same, but let’s leave out the strawmans for this example. People are unwilling to discuss what should be done about Hamas. And how do you do it without killing a bunch of civilians? It is a whole interesting and other topic that gets .01% of the attention. And it should because people also do not seem to be willing to confront that if you believe that Hamas is actually this horribly evil group , you wouldn’t want them left in charge of Palestinians. Like if Israel need the occupation, settlements outside of the short term end of the war, are the Palestinians any less oppressed? Especially the women? Hamas are very evil, but Gaza/West bank is oppressed while Nazi Germany wasn't oppressed. Palestinians are oppressed, Germany wasn't. Palestinians don't have any way out of the oppression, whereas Germans never needed a way out of anything to begin with. There's a clear difference in the level of evil coming out of Nazi Germany and the evil coming out of the Palestine regions. Hamas is a consequence of resistance being impossible against an oppressor, Nazi Germany was a consequence of a quest for total domination over all other nations and races. Furthermore, Nazi Germany was extremely powerful and extremely dangerous. Hamas doesn't even have a tiny fraction of that same power and they're nowhere near as dangerous. These are the reasons why you get very different answers to the question about what should be done about Hamas/Nazi sympathizers. It matters not only how evil the evil people are, but also what the nature of that evil is. It's human nature for victims to usually not care if their perpetrator was oppressed or not. There are exceptions of course when victims find it in themselves to forgive their attacker because of their history but it's not very common. - Palestinians being oppressed and - Israel being the victim of a horrible attack by perpetrators looking for every opportunity to do it again are true at the same time. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and compare the number of people killed and conclude that it's not justified (I'm on the sidelines to and I agree with that logical conclusion) to do what Israel is currently doing in Gaza. But at the same point of time I can emphasise with the fact that the attacks were so grotesquely evil that they basically force a reaction. Hamas did this. Israel have the power to destroy them. They decided to destroy them (or get their hostages back and the attackers as an alternative that Hamas of course rejected). Protecting civilians is secondary to that objective. If someones kid is raped and they killed the paedophile I can logically conclude that it's wrong to kill but I can also understand why they did it.
As usual, the comparison fails because in your analogy the person isn't doing anything, and then the evil action happens and they react against the pedophile. This is fairly easy to understand, it makes sense that it's illegal but morally there's no stretch going on, you could easily sway a jury to sympathize with you and I'm sure many have.
A better analogy would be, there is this building block that you want to acquire, but there are tenants there. For years you've made the conditions of life in this building block pretty bad, hoping to get the tenants to leave. You've used some violence, you've even killed a few of the tenants, but it didn't get much attention. Now there's a pedophile in the building block and he attacks your kid, and everyone is horrified. Your reaction is to kill a bunch of the tenants on the grounds that the pedophile lives there.
This is also fairly easy to understand, in my opinion. Clearly you're using the event and the sympathy that it generates to further the goal that you were already pursuing. Also if that's not already an intuitive conclusion, you have said in a bunch of places that it was your goal, and you keep saying it everywhere.
|
Northern Ireland25467 Posts
On December 07 2023 03:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 03:34 KwarK wrote:
There’s decent textual evidence for Jesus the main existing and really no reason to doubt it. There are plenty of historical figures with less evidence to support them than multiple sources written by individuals from different groups within human memory of the events. As a matter of history he basically existed.
It’d also be weird if he didn’t exist, given the place and the period. At its simplest it’s a claim that around 30 AD there was a charismatic Jewish speaker who gained a popular following but was executed by the authorities for challenging their power. Not only is that a very normal thing to assert, there were a bunch of them. So the claim has to then be that sure, charismatic Jewish speakers in that period were a relatively common thing but the one we have the most evidence for wasn’t real.
Anyone doubting the historicity of Jesus has been smoking the Dawkins pipe too hard. Of the many issues with the story of Jesus the idea that there was a man wandering around Judea speaking to people isn’t the big one.
Instead the one to bring up is that after the resurrection Jesus canonically looked like a different guy. His followers didn’t recognize him afterwards. It was only when he broke bread in a very distinctive way that they knew Jesus used to do that they clued in that this stranger was actually Jesus. If you’re going to pick fights over Jesus then that’s a good starting point. only a majority of historians believe he existed. Not all do.
it is an interesting debate. However, the biggest point of contention is whether God can exist in material form or not. Back to the antisemitism point. In countries with a lot of pious Christians the best strat is to avoid the topic and not get into it in a vulgar manner. Theoretically , you may be vulgar.. its a bad long term strat. IMO, Long term vulgarity about deeply held religious beliefs contributes to anti-semitism. Sometimes you'll hear people say that zero antisemitism must be the standard. This is impossible and also contributes to anti-semitism by creating a never ending cycle of back and forth push and pull between various groups. IMO, on a social-political level, anti semitism is best mitigated and minimized by laissez faire capitalism.
Given that as a crude grouping, evangelical Christians are amongst Israel’s largest supporters in the States, at least in the West I think you’re overstating its religious basis.
I know you approach problems with a hammer/nail mentality as per laissez faire capitalism but in this specific instance one of the biggest anti-Semitic tropes is Jewish people being disproportionately successful as capitalists. I’m not sure having more capitalism is going to defang that particular angle.
The right will attack on the vector of Jewish intellectual tradition, especially within anything to do with Marx.
Historic Jewish persecution was of course religious in basis, Jewish people adapted around necessity and succeeded in many ways. Then their successes became sticks to beat them with subsequently and justify a new form of anti-Semitism that was less religious in basis and much more about the ethnic grouping.
Obviously I’m very much broad-brushing here.
It’s pretty consistently in conflict with nationalism of various flavours, much more so than religion in my experience, at least in the West.
|
On December 07 2023 05:56 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 05:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 07 2023 03:57 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 02:39 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2023 02:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think theres an element of redundancy to this. Theres no point in stating over and over that SA sucks or that Hamas sucks, because there is no disagreement there. Israel has plenty defenders and sympathizers, and thus, there's a debate to be had. And hey, this is fair! Israeli treatment of palestinians is overall a much less black and white topic than saudi treatment of women/dissenting journalists. I also see more discussion on the topic of how to get rid of hamas (hard to know what to do, there) than on the issue of settlements (more universally condemned). There is plenty of disagreement on Hamas, people are just not being direct or logical with their assumptions. Here’s an example, and you have to imagine it is some one other than me asking this question because of… well you know. What should be done to Nazi sympathizers? What should be done to Hamas sympathizers? You would get two completely different answers. But if the question was is Hamas Nazi level bad you would have got a lot of yes’s. (Well that and a lot of Hamas and Nazis are not the exact same, but let’s leave out the strawmans for this example. People are unwilling to discuss what should be done about Hamas. And how do you do it without killing a bunch of civilians? It is a whole interesting and other topic that gets .01% of the attention. And it should because people also do not seem to be willing to confront that if you believe that Hamas is actually this horribly evil group , you wouldn’t want them left in charge of Palestinians. Like if Israel need the occupation, settlements outside of the short term end of the war, are the Palestinians any less oppressed? Especially the women? Hamas are very evil, but Gaza/West bank is oppressed while Nazi Germany wasn't oppressed. Palestinians are oppressed, Germany wasn't. Palestinians don't have any way out of the oppression, whereas Germans never needed a way out of anything to begin with. There's a clear difference in the level of evil coming out of Nazi Germany and the evil coming out of the Palestine regions. Hamas is a consequence of resistance being impossible against an oppressor, Nazi Germany was a consequence of a quest for total domination over all other nations and races. Furthermore, Nazi Germany was extremely powerful and extremely dangerous. Hamas doesn't even have a tiny fraction of that same power and they're nowhere near as dangerous. These are the reasons why you get very different answers to the question about what should be done about Hamas/Nazi sympathizers. It matters not only how evil the evil people are, but also what the nature of that evil is. It's human nature for victims to usually not care if their perpetrator was oppressed or not. There are exceptions of course when victims find it in themselves to forgive their attacker because of their history but it's not very common. - Palestinians being oppressed and - Israel being the victim of a horrible attack by perpetrators looking for every opportunity to do it again are true at the same time. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and compare the number of people killed and conclude that it's not justified (I'm on the sidelines to and I agree with that logical conclusion) to do what Israel is currently doing in Gaza. But at the same point of time I can emphasise with the fact that the attacks were so grotesquely evil that they basically force a reaction. Hamas did this. Israel have the power to destroy them. They decided to destroy them (or get their hostages back and the attackers as an alternative that Hamas of course rejected). Protecting civilians is secondary to that objective. If someones kid is raped and they killed the paedophile I can logically conclude that it's wrong to kill but I can also understand why they did it. I would've largely agreed with your comment, up until the last sentence which I think is not a valid logical abstraction of the case. We're not looking at a case of someone taking revenge on a sexual predator. We're looking at someone blowing up the neighborhood of a sexual predator while knowing this will kill his family and other families as well, and justifying it with "eliminating the threat". Meanwhile there are actually several other predators which forces us to blow up even more neighborhoods and repeat the process of killing a bunch of families. And in the process of blowing up all these neighborhoods we're also leveling half the district and displacing hundreds of other families. And the rest of the district has to cower in fear of what's going to happen next. That's not a "reaction". That's an overreaction.
It's because it's not trying to be a logical abstraction of the case. Of course it's an overreaction that was part of my point. Many legal systems even take strong emotions into account when judging on clear cut cases of overreaction.
But in this thread the perspective of quite a few posters seem to be that Israel is doing this because they want to steal the land and that the terror attacks were just a convenient excuse or equally cynical theories.
I would argue it's pretty easy to understand why Israeli politicians decided on this course of action, why the IDF acts as they do and why at least parts of the civilian society supports it. I can even emphasise with it even if I think it's wrong.
|
Northern Ireland25467 Posts
On December 07 2023 08:12 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 05:56 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 05:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 07 2023 03:57 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 02:39 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2023 02:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think theres an element of redundancy to this. Theres no point in stating over and over that SA sucks or that Hamas sucks, because there is no disagreement there. Israel has plenty defenders and sympathizers, and thus, there's a debate to be had. And hey, this is fair! Israeli treatment of palestinians is overall a much less black and white topic than saudi treatment of women/dissenting journalists. I also see more discussion on the topic of how to get rid of hamas (hard to know what to do, there) than on the issue of settlements (more universally condemned). There is plenty of disagreement on Hamas, people are just not being direct or logical with their assumptions. Here’s an example, and you have to imagine it is some one other than me asking this question because of… well you know. What should be done to Nazi sympathizers? What should be done to Hamas sympathizers? You would get two completely different answers. But if the question was is Hamas Nazi level bad you would have got a lot of yes’s. (Well that and a lot of Hamas and Nazis are not the exact same, but let’s leave out the strawmans for this example. People are unwilling to discuss what should be done about Hamas. And how do you do it without killing a bunch of civilians? It is a whole interesting and other topic that gets .01% of the attention. And it should because people also do not seem to be willing to confront that if you believe that Hamas is actually this horribly evil group , you wouldn’t want them left in charge of Palestinians. Like if Israel need the occupation, settlements outside of the short term end of the war, are the Palestinians any less oppressed? Especially the women? Hamas are very evil, but Gaza/West bank is oppressed while Nazi Germany wasn't oppressed. Palestinians are oppressed, Germany wasn't. Palestinians don't have any way out of the oppression, whereas Germans never needed a way out of anything to begin with. There's a clear difference in the level of evil coming out of Nazi Germany and the evil coming out of the Palestine regions. Hamas is a consequence of resistance being impossible against an oppressor, Nazi Germany was a consequence of a quest for total domination over all other nations and races. Furthermore, Nazi Germany was extremely powerful and extremely dangerous. Hamas doesn't even have a tiny fraction of that same power and they're nowhere near as dangerous. These are the reasons why you get very different answers to the question about what should be done about Hamas/Nazi sympathizers. It matters not only how evil the evil people are, but also what the nature of that evil is. It's human nature for victims to usually not care if their perpetrator was oppressed or not. There are exceptions of course when victims find it in themselves to forgive their attacker because of their history but it's not very common. - Palestinians being oppressed and - Israel being the victim of a horrible attack by perpetrators looking for every opportunity to do it again are true at the same time. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and compare the number of people killed and conclude that it's not justified (I'm on the sidelines to and I agree with that logical conclusion) to do what Israel is currently doing in Gaza. But at the same point of time I can emphasise with the fact that the attacks were so grotesquely evil that they basically force a reaction. Hamas did this. Israel have the power to destroy them. They decided to destroy them (or get their hostages back and the attackers as an alternative that Hamas of course rejected). Protecting civilians is secondary to that objective. If someones kid is raped and they killed the paedophile I can logically conclude that it's wrong to kill but I can also understand why they did it. I would've largely agreed with your comment, up until the last sentence which I think is not a valid logical abstraction of the case. We're not looking at a case of someone taking revenge on a sexual predator. We're looking at someone blowing up the neighborhood of a sexual predator while knowing this will kill his family and other families as well, and justifying it with "eliminating the threat". Meanwhile there are actually several other predators which forces us to blow up even more neighborhoods and repeat the process of killing a bunch of families. And in the process of blowing up all these neighborhoods we're also leveling half the district and displacing hundreds of other families. And the rest of the district has to cower in fear of what's going to happen next. That's not a "reaction". That's an overreaction. It's because it's not trying to be a logical abstraction of the case. Of course it's an overreaction that was part of my point. Many legal systems even take strong emotions into account when judging on clear cut cases of overreaction. But in this thread the perspective of quite a few posters seem to be that Israel is doing this because they want to steal the land and that the terror attacks were just a convenient excuse or equally cynical theories. I would argue it's pretty easy to understand why Israeli politicians decided on this course of action, why the IDF acts as they do and why at least parts of the civilian society supports it. I can even emphasise with it even if I think it's wrong.
Who’s arguing this? The prevailing opinion from that camp appears to be more ‘Israel was already doing this, after a grievous terror incident there’ll be less resistance and pushback to continuing to do this.’
Which isn’t in a completely different universe, but is different enough to justify a distinction being made.
|
|
|
On December 07 2023 10:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 09:58 WombaT wrote:On December 07 2023 08:12 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 07 2023 05:56 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 05:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 07 2023 03:57 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 02:39 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2023 02:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think theres an element of redundancy to this. Theres no point in stating over and over that SA sucks or that Hamas sucks, because there is no disagreement there. Israel has plenty defenders and sympathizers, and thus, there's a debate to be had. And hey, this is fair! Israeli treatment of palestinians is overall a much less black and white topic than saudi treatment of women/dissenting journalists. I also see more discussion on the topic of how to get rid of hamas (hard to know what to do, there) than on the issue of settlements (more universally condemned). There is plenty of disagreement on Hamas, people are just not being direct or logical with their assumptions. Here’s an example, and you have to imagine it is some one other than me asking this question because of… well you know. What should be done to Nazi sympathizers? What should be done to Hamas sympathizers? You would get two completely different answers. But if the question was is Hamas Nazi level bad you would have got a lot of yes’s. (Well that and a lot of Hamas and Nazis are not the exact same, but let’s leave out the strawmans for this example. People are unwilling to discuss what should be done about Hamas. And how do you do it without killing a bunch of civilians? It is a whole interesting and other topic that gets .01% of the attention. And it should because people also do not seem to be willing to confront that if you believe that Hamas is actually this horribly evil group , you wouldn’t want them left in charge of Palestinians. Like if Israel need the occupation, settlements outside of the short term end of the war, are the Palestinians any less oppressed? Especially the women? Hamas are very evil, but Gaza/West bank is oppressed while Nazi Germany wasn't oppressed. Palestinians are oppressed, Germany wasn't. Palestinians don't have any way out of the oppression, whereas Germans never needed a way out of anything to begin with. There's a clear difference in the level of evil coming out of Nazi Germany and the evil coming out of the Palestine regions. Hamas is a consequence of resistance being impossible against an oppressor, Nazi Germany was a consequence of a quest for total domination over all other nations and races. Furthermore, Nazi Germany was extremely powerful and extremely dangerous. Hamas doesn't even have a tiny fraction of that same power and they're nowhere near as dangerous. These are the reasons why you get very different answers to the question about what should be done about Hamas/Nazi sympathizers. It matters not only how evil the evil people are, but also what the nature of that evil is. It's human nature for victims to usually not care if their perpetrator was oppressed or not. There are exceptions of course when victims find it in themselves to forgive their attacker because of their history but it's not very common. - Palestinians being oppressed and - Israel being the victim of a horrible attack by perpetrators looking for every opportunity to do it again are true at the same time. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and compare the number of people killed and conclude that it's not justified (I'm on the sidelines to and I agree with that logical conclusion) to do what Israel is currently doing in Gaza. But at the same point of time I can emphasise with the fact that the attacks were so grotesquely evil that they basically force a reaction. Hamas did this. Israel have the power to destroy them. They decided to destroy them (or get their hostages back and the attackers as an alternative that Hamas of course rejected). Protecting civilians is secondary to that objective. If someones kid is raped and they killed the paedophile I can logically conclude that it's wrong to kill but I can also understand why they did it. I would've largely agreed with your comment, up until the last sentence which I think is not a valid logical abstraction of the case. We're not looking at a case of someone taking revenge on a sexual predator. We're looking at someone blowing up the neighborhood of a sexual predator while knowing this will kill his family and other families as well, and justifying it with "eliminating the threat". Meanwhile there are actually several other predators which forces us to blow up even more neighborhoods and repeat the process of killing a bunch of families. And in the process of blowing up all these neighborhoods we're also leveling half the district and displacing hundreds of other families. And the rest of the district has to cower in fear of what's going to happen next. That's not a "reaction". That's an overreaction. It's because it's not trying to be a logical abstraction of the case. Of course it's an overreaction that was part of my point. Many legal systems even take strong emotions into account when judging on clear cut cases of overreaction. But in this thread the perspective of quite a few posters seem to be that Israel is doing this because they want to steal the land and that the terror attacks were just a convenient excuse or equally cynical theories. I would argue it's pretty easy to understand why Israeli politicians decided on this course of action, why the IDF acts as they do and why at least parts of the civilian society supports it. I can even emphasise with it even if I think it's wrong. Who’s arguing this? The prevailing opinion from that camp appears to be more ‘Israel was already doing this, after a grievous terror incident there’ll be less resistance and pushback to continuing to do this.’ Which isn’t in a completely different universe, but is different enough to justify a distinction being made. It is very clear Israel is doing something very different since Oct. 7th.
Doesn't look any different from 2008 or 2014 wars so far.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland25467 Posts
On December 07 2023 10:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 09:58 WombaT wrote:On December 07 2023 08:12 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 07 2023 05:56 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 05:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 07 2023 03:57 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 02:39 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2023 02:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think theres an element of redundancy to this. Theres no point in stating over and over that SA sucks or that Hamas sucks, because there is no disagreement there. Israel has plenty defenders and sympathizers, and thus, there's a debate to be had. And hey, this is fair! Israeli treatment of palestinians is overall a much less black and white topic than saudi treatment of women/dissenting journalists. I also see more discussion on the topic of how to get rid of hamas (hard to know what to do, there) than on the issue of settlements (more universally condemned). There is plenty of disagreement on Hamas, people are just not being direct or logical with their assumptions. Here’s an example, and you have to imagine it is some one other than me asking this question because of… well you know. What should be done to Nazi sympathizers? What should be done to Hamas sympathizers? You would get two completely different answers. But if the question was is Hamas Nazi level bad you would have got a lot of yes’s. (Well that and a lot of Hamas and Nazis are not the exact same, but let’s leave out the strawmans for this example. People are unwilling to discuss what should be done about Hamas. And how do you do it without killing a bunch of civilians? It is a whole interesting and other topic that gets .01% of the attention. And it should because people also do not seem to be willing to confront that if you believe that Hamas is actually this horribly evil group , you wouldn’t want them left in charge of Palestinians. Like if Israel need the occupation, settlements outside of the short term end of the war, are the Palestinians any less oppressed? Especially the women? Hamas are very evil, but Gaza/West bank is oppressed while Nazi Germany wasn't oppressed. Palestinians are oppressed, Germany wasn't. Palestinians don't have any way out of the oppression, whereas Germans never needed a way out of anything to begin with. There's a clear difference in the level of evil coming out of Nazi Germany and the evil coming out of the Palestine regions. Hamas is a consequence of resistance being impossible against an oppressor, Nazi Germany was a consequence of a quest for total domination over all other nations and races. Furthermore, Nazi Germany was extremely powerful and extremely dangerous. Hamas doesn't even have a tiny fraction of that same power and they're nowhere near as dangerous. These are the reasons why you get very different answers to the question about what should be done about Hamas/Nazi sympathizers. It matters not only how evil the evil people are, but also what the nature of that evil is. It's human nature for victims to usually not care if their perpetrator was oppressed or not. There are exceptions of course when victims find it in themselves to forgive their attacker because of their history but it's not very common. - Palestinians being oppressed and - Israel being the victim of a horrible attack by perpetrators looking for every opportunity to do it again are true at the same time. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and compare the number of people killed and conclude that it's not justified (I'm on the sidelines to and I agree with that logical conclusion) to do what Israel is currently doing in Gaza. But at the same point of time I can emphasise with the fact that the attacks were so grotesquely evil that they basically force a reaction. Hamas did this. Israel have the power to destroy them. They decided to destroy them (or get their hostages back and the attackers as an alternative that Hamas of course rejected). Protecting civilians is secondary to that objective. If someones kid is raped and they killed the paedophile I can logically conclude that it's wrong to kill but I can also understand why they did it. I would've largely agreed with your comment, up until the last sentence which I think is not a valid logical abstraction of the case. We're not looking at a case of someone taking revenge on a sexual predator. We're looking at someone blowing up the neighborhood of a sexual predator while knowing this will kill his family and other families as well, and justifying it with "eliminating the threat". Meanwhile there are actually several other predators which forces us to blow up even more neighborhoods and repeat the process of killing a bunch of families. And in the process of blowing up all these neighborhoods we're also leveling half the district and displacing hundreds of other families. And the rest of the district has to cower in fear of what's going to happen next. That's not a "reaction". That's an overreaction. It's because it's not trying to be a logical abstraction of the case. Of course it's an overreaction that was part of my point. Many legal systems even take strong emotions into account when judging on clear cut cases of overreaction. But in this thread the perspective of quite a few posters seem to be that Israel is doing this because they want to steal the land and that the terror attacks were just a convenient excuse or equally cynical theories. I would argue it's pretty easy to understand why Israeli politicians decided on this course of action, why the IDF acts as they do and why at least parts of the civilian society supports it. I can even emphasise with it even if I think it's wrong. Who’s arguing this? The prevailing opinion from that camp appears to be more ‘Israel was already doing this, after a grievous terror incident there’ll be less resistance and pushback to continuing to do this.’ Which isn’t in a completely different universe, but is different enough to justify a distinction being made. It is very clear Israel is doing something very different since Oct. 7th.
I was responding specifically to CuddlyCuteKitten saying ’But in this thread the perspective of quite a few posters seem to be that Israel is doing this because they want to steal the land and that the terror attacks were just a convenient excuse or equally cynical theories.’
The state of Israel hardly needs a justification, or a false flag or any such nonsense to continue a policy they’ve been enacting and been largely left alone by meaningful international pushback to pursue for decades.
There seems to be some crossing of wires when it comes to two separate but obviously linked things.
1. Israel’s policy and behaviour preceding, and continuing post October 7th
2. Israel’s response to the events of October 7th.
The first oppositional camp I doubt has any recent converts, least within the thread. People who may be thoroughly against Israel on point 1, may still, and have conceded Israel has some legitimate right to self defence on point 2.
Observing that the events of Oct 7th are more likely to harden attitudes against softening or reversing settlement isn’t the same as saying they’re a pretext for a policy that’s been long-standing and visibly enacted.
Perhaps I’m splitting too many hairs on this but I feel it’s not really an accurate reflection of people’s stated positions on this.
|
@JImmyJRaynor : I know a lot of Jews and very few of them openly mock other people's religious beliefs. You are right that that is a bad thing to do. But not because of antisemitism. Because it's just rude and disrespectful.
As for antisemitism, there are significantly more antisemites in the world than there are Jews (ADL estimates over a billion people harbor antisemitic attitudes). Most of those have never even met a Jew, let alone had a conversation with one of these less socially sensitive ones.
You should always look for ways to become a better person or encourage others to be their best selves, but saying that millions of people around the world hate Jews because those Jews personally insulted them is victim blaming at best.
Re: Jesus- there is nothing in Judaism per se that says he didn't exist. There is even a Jesus mentioned in old Jewish texts that may be the same guy. One of the Rambam's Principles of Faith says that God has no body/physical form, so it's not a Jewish idea to believe he was (or even could be) God, but there is no Jewish reason not to believe that he was a real human being.
|
On December 07 2023 09:58 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 08:12 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 07 2023 05:56 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 05:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 07 2023 03:57 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 02:39 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2023 02:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think theres an element of redundancy to this. Theres no point in stating over and over that SA sucks or that Hamas sucks, because there is no disagreement there. Israel has plenty defenders and sympathizers, and thus, there's a debate to be had. And hey, this is fair! Israeli treatment of palestinians is overall a much less black and white topic than saudi treatment of women/dissenting journalists. I also see more discussion on the topic of how to get rid of hamas (hard to know what to do, there) than on the issue of settlements (more universally condemned). There is plenty of disagreement on Hamas, people are just not being direct or logical with their assumptions. Here’s an example, and you have to imagine it is some one other than me asking this question because of… well you know. What should be done to Nazi sympathizers? What should be done to Hamas sympathizers? You would get two completely different answers. But if the question was is Hamas Nazi level bad you would have got a lot of yes’s. (Well that and a lot of Hamas and Nazis are not the exact same, but let’s leave out the strawmans for this example. People are unwilling to discuss what should be done about Hamas. And how do you do it without killing a bunch of civilians? It is a whole interesting and other topic that gets .01% of the attention. And it should because people also do not seem to be willing to confront that if you believe that Hamas is actually this horribly evil group , you wouldn’t want them left in charge of Palestinians. Like if Israel need the occupation, settlements outside of the short term end of the war, are the Palestinians any less oppressed? Especially the women? Hamas are very evil, but Gaza/West bank is oppressed while Nazi Germany wasn't oppressed. Palestinians are oppressed, Germany wasn't. Palestinians don't have any way out of the oppression, whereas Germans never needed a way out of anything to begin with. There's a clear difference in the level of evil coming out of Nazi Germany and the evil coming out of the Palestine regions. Hamas is a consequence of resistance being impossible against an oppressor, Nazi Germany was a consequence of a quest for total domination over all other nations and races. Furthermore, Nazi Germany was extremely powerful and extremely dangerous. Hamas doesn't even have a tiny fraction of that same power and they're nowhere near as dangerous. These are the reasons why you get very different answers to the question about what should be done about Hamas/Nazi sympathizers. It matters not only how evil the evil people are, but also what the nature of that evil is. It's human nature for victims to usually not care if their perpetrator was oppressed or not. There are exceptions of course when victims find it in themselves to forgive their attacker because of their history but it's not very common. - Palestinians being oppressed and - Israel being the victim of a horrible attack by perpetrators looking for every opportunity to do it again are true at the same time. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and compare the number of people killed and conclude that it's not justified (I'm on the sidelines to and I agree with that logical conclusion) to do what Israel is currently doing in Gaza. But at the same point of time I can emphasise with the fact that the attacks were so grotesquely evil that they basically force a reaction. Hamas did this. Israel have the power to destroy them. They decided to destroy them (or get their hostages back and the attackers as an alternative that Hamas of course rejected). Protecting civilians is secondary to that objective. If someones kid is raped and they killed the paedophile I can logically conclude that it's wrong to kill but I can also understand why they did it. I would've largely agreed with your comment, up until the last sentence which I think is not a valid logical abstraction of the case. We're not looking at a case of someone taking revenge on a sexual predator. We're looking at someone blowing up the neighborhood of a sexual predator while knowing this will kill his family and other families as well, and justifying it with "eliminating the threat". Meanwhile there are actually several other predators which forces us to blow up even more neighborhoods and repeat the process of killing a bunch of families. And in the process of blowing up all these neighborhoods we're also leveling half the district and displacing hundreds of other families. And the rest of the district has to cower in fear of what's going to happen next. That's not a "reaction". That's an overreaction. It's because it's not trying to be a logical abstraction of the case. Of course it's an overreaction that was part of my point. Many legal systems even take strong emotions into account when judging on clear cut cases of overreaction. But in this thread the perspective of quite a few posters seem to be that Israel is doing this because they want to steal the land and that the terror attacks were just a convenient excuse or equally cynical theories. I would argue it's pretty easy to understand why Israeli politicians decided on this course of action, why the IDF acts as they do and why at least parts of the civilian society supports it. I can even emphasise with it even if I think it's wrong. Who’s arguing this? The prevailing opinion from that camp appears to be more ‘Israel was already doing this, after a grievous terror incident there’ll be less resistance and pushback to continuing to do this.’ Which isn’t in a completely different universe, but is different enough to justify a distinction being made.
I stopped commenting but keept reading back when GH postulated that Israel probably didn't want to get the hostages back because they would lose their convinient excuse to ethnic cleansing. Another example is Nebuchads post at the very top of the page. I'm sure there are countless examples inbetween.
This thread is mainly about how bad Israel has been in the past. If you bring up that Hamas is bad it gets handwaved. If you disagree on a negative labeling of Israel or their actions like using genocide or ethnostate theres pages of pushback.
Anyway my response was prompted because of the post stating that there is zero intrest in discussing what Israel should do about Hamas. If it's brought up you get a list of what they shouldn't have done in the past and what they should stop with (settlements etc etc.).
Implicitly that it's really their own fault and they should take one for the team and turn the other cheek.
Which politically, psychologically and perhaps even morally is impossible right now.
That you can't see it is not strange. Greta Thunbergs reaction when she publicly took a side with Fridays for future was basically "it's the rigth and natural thing to do I don't understand the criticism". When many simply doesn't want an environmental group to get entangled in other subjects.
Feels the same way in this thread honestly from the majority of posts. Israel is always wrong, their intentions are always bad, historical actions are always their fault and zero attempts at trying to see the other sides view.
To come full circle.
The rise of Hamas is the result of historic oppression and conflict = I agree.
Israels motivation for their actions is because they want to steal the land = Really?
Extremely balanced take that I at least feel is common.
|
Looking at people's actions primarily, it's been proposed that Israel occupy Gaza after this war is over. There's no end of the war in sight. If the war ends, there's no end date proposed of the subsequent planned occupation. That strongly indicates that Israel is not going to return Gaza to Palestinians at any point during or after the war.
Occupation of land is the first step to annexation, and since Israel has a history of stealing land from Palestinians it is very reasonable of people to be afraid that land in Gaza or all of Gaza will also be stolen.
It's just following the historic pattern. It's not paranoid, and it's not a particularly unreasonable prediction or accusation.
|
On December 07 2023 15:55 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 09:58 WombaT wrote:On December 07 2023 08:12 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 07 2023 05:56 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 05:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 07 2023 03:57 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 02:39 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2023 02:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think theres an element of redundancy to this. Theres no point in stating over and over that SA sucks or that Hamas sucks, because there is no disagreement there. Israel has plenty defenders and sympathizers, and thus, there's a debate to be had. And hey, this is fair! Israeli treatment of palestinians is overall a much less black and white topic than saudi treatment of women/dissenting journalists. I also see more discussion on the topic of how to get rid of hamas (hard to know what to do, there) than on the issue of settlements (more universally condemned). There is plenty of disagreement on Hamas, people are just not being direct or logical with their assumptions. Here’s an example, and you have to imagine it is some one other than me asking this question because of… well you know. What should be done to Nazi sympathizers? What should be done to Hamas sympathizers? You would get two completely different answers. But if the question was is Hamas Nazi level bad you would have got a lot of yes’s. (Well that and a lot of Hamas and Nazis are not the exact same, but let’s leave out the strawmans for this example. People are unwilling to discuss what should be done about Hamas. And how do you do it without killing a bunch of civilians? It is a whole interesting and other topic that gets .01% of the attention. And it should because people also do not seem to be willing to confront that if you believe that Hamas is actually this horribly evil group , you wouldn’t want them left in charge of Palestinians. Like if Israel need the occupation, settlements outside of the short term end of the war, are the Palestinians any less oppressed? Especially the women? Hamas are very evil, but Gaza/West bank is oppressed while Nazi Germany wasn't oppressed. Palestinians are oppressed, Germany wasn't. Palestinians don't have any way out of the oppression, whereas Germans never needed a way out of anything to begin with. There's a clear difference in the level of evil coming out of Nazi Germany and the evil coming out of the Palestine regions. Hamas is a consequence of resistance being impossible against an oppressor, Nazi Germany was a consequence of a quest for total domination over all other nations and races. Furthermore, Nazi Germany was extremely powerful and extremely dangerous. Hamas doesn't even have a tiny fraction of that same power and they're nowhere near as dangerous. These are the reasons why you get very different answers to the question about what should be done about Hamas/Nazi sympathizers. It matters not only how evil the evil people are, but also what the nature of that evil is. It's human nature for victims to usually not care if their perpetrator was oppressed or not. There are exceptions of course when victims find it in themselves to forgive their attacker because of their history but it's not very common. - Palestinians being oppressed and - Israel being the victim of a horrible attack by perpetrators looking for every opportunity to do it again are true at the same time. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and compare the number of people killed and conclude that it's not justified (I'm on the sidelines to and I agree with that logical conclusion) to do what Israel is currently doing in Gaza. But at the same point of time I can emphasise with the fact that the attacks were so grotesquely evil that they basically force a reaction. Hamas did this. Israel have the power to destroy them. They decided to destroy them (or get their hostages back and the attackers as an alternative that Hamas of course rejected). Protecting civilians is secondary to that objective. If someones kid is raped and they killed the paedophile I can logically conclude that it's wrong to kill but I can also understand why they did it. I would've largely agreed with your comment, up until the last sentence which I think is not a valid logical abstraction of the case. We're not looking at a case of someone taking revenge on a sexual predator. We're looking at someone blowing up the neighborhood of a sexual predator while knowing this will kill his family and other families as well, and justifying it with "eliminating the threat". Meanwhile there are actually several other predators which forces us to blow up even more neighborhoods and repeat the process of killing a bunch of families. And in the process of blowing up all these neighborhoods we're also leveling half the district and displacing hundreds of other families. And the rest of the district has to cower in fear of what's going to happen next. That's not a "reaction". That's an overreaction. It's because it's not trying to be a logical abstraction of the case. Of course it's an overreaction that was part of my point. Many legal systems even take strong emotions into account when judging on clear cut cases of overreaction. But in this thread the perspective of quite a few posters seem to be that Israel is doing this because they want to steal the land and that the terror attacks were just a convenient excuse or equally cynical theories. I would argue it's pretty easy to understand why Israeli politicians decided on this course of action, why the IDF acts as they do and why at least parts of the civilian society supports it. I can even emphasise with it even if I think it's wrong. Who’s arguing this? The prevailing opinion from that camp appears to be more ‘Israel was already doing this, after a grievous terror incident there’ll be less resistance and pushback to continuing to do this.’ Which isn’t in a completely different universe, but is different enough to justify a distinction being made. I stopped commenting but keept reading back when GH postulated that Israel probably didn't want to get the hostages back because they would lose their convinient excuse to ethnic cleansing. Another example is Nebuchads post at the very top of the page. I'm sure there are countless examples inbetween. This thread is mainly about how bad Israel has been in the past. If you bring up that Hamas is bad it gets handwaved. If you disagree on a negative labeling of Israel or their actions like using genocide or ethnostate theres pages of pushback. Anyway my response was prompted because of the post stating that there is zero intrest in discussing what Israel should do about Hamas. If it's brought up you get a list of what they shouldn't have done in the past and what they should stop with (settlements etc etc.). Implicitly that it's really their own fault and they should take one for the team and turn the other cheek. Which politically, psychologically and perhaps even morally is impossible right now. That you can't see it is not strange. Greta Thunbergs reaction when she publicly took a side with Fridays for future was basically "it's the rigth and natural thing to do I don't understand the criticism". When many simply doesn't want an environmental group to get entangled in other subjects. Feels the same way in this thread honestly from the majority of posts. Israel is always wrong, their intentions are always bad, historical actions are always their fault and zero attempts at trying to see the other sides view. To come full circle. The rise of Hamas is the result of historic oppression and conflict = I agree. Israels motivation for their actions is because they want to steal the land = Really? Extremely balanced take that I at least feel is common.
This thread is mainly about how bad Israel has been in the past.
=> There is a lot of discussion of the past in the thread but in the specific case you're discussing now, it isn't about the past. I've been trying to insist on this because it's important. We're not doing context or who started this, we're looking at what's happening now, and the normalized state of violence toward Palestinians by Israel is an integral part of what happens now, not something bad that Israel did in the past.
This thread is mainly about how bad Israel has been in the past. If you bring up that Hamas is bad it gets handwaved. If you disagree on a negative labeling of Israel or their actions like using genocide or ethnostate theres pages of pushback.
=> Well yeah, that makes sense doesn't it? It's because we agree on one and we don't agree on the other. If you said terrorism when it comes to Hamas and someone answered "actually in the case of Hamas I don't think it's very fair to say terrorism, it's negatively connotated you're just trying to make the palestinian struggle look bad, I would rather you used more neutral language like resistance please" there would be pages about that. But that's not reality.
Israels motivation for their actions is because they want to steal the land = Really?
=> Yes, really.
|
On December 07 2023 15:55 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 09:58 WombaT wrote:On December 07 2023 08:12 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 07 2023 05:56 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 05:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 07 2023 03:57 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 02:39 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2023 02:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think theres an element of redundancy to this. Theres no point in stating over and over that SA sucks or that Hamas sucks, because there is no disagreement there. Israel has plenty defenders and sympathizers, and thus, there's a debate to be had. And hey, this is fair! Israeli treatment of palestinians is overall a much less black and white topic than saudi treatment of women/dissenting journalists. I also see more discussion on the topic of how to get rid of hamas (hard to know what to do, there) than on the issue of settlements (more universally condemned). There is plenty of disagreement on Hamas, people are just not being direct or logical with their assumptions. Here’s an example, and you have to imagine it is some one other than me asking this question because of… well you know. What should be done to Nazi sympathizers? What should be done to Hamas sympathizers? You would get two completely different answers. But if the question was is Hamas Nazi level bad you would have got a lot of yes’s. (Well that and a lot of Hamas and Nazis are not the exact same, but let’s leave out the strawmans for this example. People are unwilling to discuss what should be done about Hamas. And how do you do it without killing a bunch of civilians? It is a whole interesting and other topic that gets .01% of the attention. And it should because people also do not seem to be willing to confront that if you believe that Hamas is actually this horribly evil group , you wouldn’t want them left in charge of Palestinians. Like if Israel need the occupation, settlements outside of the short term end of the war, are the Palestinians any less oppressed? Especially the women? Hamas are very evil, but Gaza/West bank is oppressed while Nazi Germany wasn't oppressed. Palestinians are oppressed, Germany wasn't. Palestinians don't have any way out of the oppression, whereas Germans never needed a way out of anything to begin with. There's a clear difference in the level of evil coming out of Nazi Germany and the evil coming out of the Palestine regions. Hamas is a consequence of resistance being impossible against an oppressor, Nazi Germany was a consequence of a quest for total domination over all other nations and races. Furthermore, Nazi Germany was extremely powerful and extremely dangerous. Hamas doesn't even have a tiny fraction of that same power and they're nowhere near as dangerous. These are the reasons why you get very different answers to the question about what should be done about Hamas/Nazi sympathizers. It matters not only how evil the evil people are, but also what the nature of that evil is. It's human nature for victims to usually not care if their perpetrator was oppressed or not. There are exceptions of course when victims find it in themselves to forgive their attacker because of their history but it's not very common. - Palestinians being oppressed and - Israel being the victim of a horrible attack by perpetrators looking for every opportunity to do it again are true at the same time. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and compare the number of people killed and conclude that it's not justified (I'm on the sidelines to and I agree with that logical conclusion) to do what Israel is currently doing in Gaza. But at the same point of time I can emphasise with the fact that the attacks were so grotesquely evil that they basically force a reaction. Hamas did this. Israel have the power to destroy them. They decided to destroy them (or get their hostages back and the attackers as an alternative that Hamas of course rejected). Protecting civilians is secondary to that objective. If someones kid is raped and they killed the paedophile I can logically conclude that it's wrong to kill but I can also understand why they did it. I would've largely agreed with your comment, up until the last sentence which I think is not a valid logical abstraction of the case. We're not looking at a case of someone taking revenge on a sexual predator. We're looking at someone blowing up the neighborhood of a sexual predator while knowing this will kill his family and other families as well, and justifying it with "eliminating the threat". Meanwhile there are actually several other predators which forces us to blow up even more neighborhoods and repeat the process of killing a bunch of families. And in the process of blowing up all these neighborhoods we're also leveling half the district and displacing hundreds of other families. And the rest of the district has to cower in fear of what's going to happen next. That's not a "reaction". That's an overreaction. It's because it's not trying to be a logical abstraction of the case. Of course it's an overreaction that was part of my point. Many legal systems even take strong emotions into account when judging on clear cut cases of overreaction. But in this thread the perspective of quite a few posters seem to be that Israel is doing this because they want to steal the land and that the terror attacks were just a convenient excuse or equally cynical theories. I would argue it's pretty easy to understand why Israeli politicians decided on this course of action, why the IDF acts as they do and why at least parts of the civilian society supports it. I can even emphasise with it even if I think it's wrong. Who’s arguing this? The prevailing opinion from that camp appears to be more ‘Israel was already doing this, after a grievous terror incident there’ll be less resistance and pushback to continuing to do this.’ Which isn’t in a completely different universe, but is different enough to justify a distinction being made. I stopped commenting but keept reading back when GH postulated that Israel probably didn't want to get the hostages back because they would lose their convinient excuse to ethnic cleansing. Another example is Nebuchads post at the very top of the page. I'm sure there are countless examples inbetween. This thread is mainly about how bad Israel has been in the past. If you bring up that Hamas is bad it gets handwaved. If you disagree on a negative labeling of Israel or their actions like using genocide or ethnostate theres pages of pushback. Anyway my response was prompted because of the post stating that there is zero intrest in discussing what Israel should do about Hamas. If it's brought up you get a list of what they shouldn't have done in the past and what they should stop with (settlements etc etc.). Implicitly that it's really their own fault and they should take one for the team and turn the other cheek. Which politically, psychologically and perhaps even morally is impossible right now. That you can't see it is not strange. Greta Thunbergs reaction when she publicly took a side with Fridays for future was basically "it's the rigth and natural thing to do I don't understand the criticism". When many simply doesn't want an environmental group to get entangled in other subjects. Feels the same way in this thread honestly from the majority of posts. Israel is always wrong, their intentions are always bad, historical actions are always their fault and zero attempts at trying to see the other sides view. To come full circle. The rise of Hamas is the result of historic oppression and conflict = I agree. Israels motivation for their actions is because they want to steal the land = Really? Extremely balanced take that I at least feel is common.
Unless you think the starcraft community are all a bunch of anti-semites, which is definitely a hypothesis you can put forward, do you feel that a bunch of foreigners on a gaming website have any particular reason to be upset about Israel's behaviour? We're mostly from western countries, and thus "traditionally" pro-Israel. Something must have happened for you to have the feeling that most of the people here are arguing that "Israel is always wrong and their intentions are always bad". Could it be that it isn't about the always, but more about the current regime and the current war? I haven't seen anybody denying Hamas are a bunch of evil cunts and that the world would be a better place if they didn't exist. The problem isn't that anybody disagrees that Hamas are evil. The problem is that people think Israel is massively overreacting and (needlessly) causing a humanitarian crisis. Furthermore, the current regime can definitely not be trusted to make any headway in even trying to find a peaceful solution of coexistence with the remaining Palestinians even if they succeed in the stated mission of "eradicating Hamas".
Finally, just because the focus is on criticizing Israel's past actions to contextualize the current conflict doesn't mean people are putting all the blame on Israel. Both sides have made every possible wrong choice they could make going back to at least 1948 and probably beyond. We can believe that Israel is an Apartheid regime oppressing Palestinians, and also that this is largely self-inflicted by Palestinians apparent complete inability to compromise at all on anything, and resorting to violence as their first, rather than last, solution.
|
On December 07 2023 19:36 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2023 15:55 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 07 2023 09:58 WombaT wrote:On December 07 2023 08:12 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 07 2023 05:56 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 05:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 07 2023 03:57 Magic Powers wrote:On December 07 2023 02:39 JimmiC wrote:On December 07 2023 02:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think theres an element of redundancy to this. Theres no point in stating over and over that SA sucks or that Hamas sucks, because there is no disagreement there. Israel has plenty defenders and sympathizers, and thus, there's a debate to be had. And hey, this is fair! Israeli treatment of palestinians is overall a much less black and white topic than saudi treatment of women/dissenting journalists. I also see more discussion on the topic of how to get rid of hamas (hard to know what to do, there) than on the issue of settlements (more universally condemned). There is plenty of disagreement on Hamas, people are just not being direct or logical with their assumptions. Here’s an example, and you have to imagine it is some one other than me asking this question because of… well you know. What should be done to Nazi sympathizers? What should be done to Hamas sympathizers? You would get two completely different answers. But if the question was is Hamas Nazi level bad you would have got a lot of yes’s. (Well that and a lot of Hamas and Nazis are not the exact same, but let’s leave out the strawmans for this example. People are unwilling to discuss what should be done about Hamas. And how do you do it without killing a bunch of civilians? It is a whole interesting and other topic that gets .01% of the attention. And it should because people also do not seem to be willing to confront that if you believe that Hamas is actually this horribly evil group , you wouldn’t want them left in charge of Palestinians. Like if Israel need the occupation, settlements outside of the short term end of the war, are the Palestinians any less oppressed? Especially the women? Hamas are very evil, but Gaza/West bank is oppressed while Nazi Germany wasn't oppressed. Palestinians are oppressed, Germany wasn't. Palestinians don't have any way out of the oppression, whereas Germans never needed a way out of anything to begin with. There's a clear difference in the level of evil coming out of Nazi Germany and the evil coming out of the Palestine regions. Hamas is a consequence of resistance being impossible against an oppressor, Nazi Germany was a consequence of a quest for total domination over all other nations and races. Furthermore, Nazi Germany was extremely powerful and extremely dangerous. Hamas doesn't even have a tiny fraction of that same power and they're nowhere near as dangerous. These are the reasons why you get very different answers to the question about what should be done about Hamas/Nazi sympathizers. It matters not only how evil the evil people are, but also what the nature of that evil is. It's human nature for victims to usually not care if their perpetrator was oppressed or not. There are exceptions of course when victims find it in themselves to forgive their attacker because of their history but it's not very common. - Palestinians being oppressed and - Israel being the victim of a horrible attack by perpetrators looking for every opportunity to do it again are true at the same time. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and compare the number of people killed and conclude that it's not justified (I'm on the sidelines to and I agree with that logical conclusion) to do what Israel is currently doing in Gaza. But at the same point of time I can emphasise with the fact that the attacks were so grotesquely evil that they basically force a reaction. Hamas did this. Israel have the power to destroy them. They decided to destroy them (or get their hostages back and the attackers as an alternative that Hamas of course rejected). Protecting civilians is secondary to that objective. If someones kid is raped and they killed the paedophile I can logically conclude that it's wrong to kill but I can also understand why they did it. I would've largely agreed with your comment, up until the last sentence which I think is not a valid logical abstraction of the case. We're not looking at a case of someone taking revenge on a sexual predator. We're looking at someone blowing up the neighborhood of a sexual predator while knowing this will kill his family and other families as well, and justifying it with "eliminating the threat". Meanwhile there are actually several other predators which forces us to blow up even more neighborhoods and repeat the process of killing a bunch of families. And in the process of blowing up all these neighborhoods we're also leveling half the district and displacing hundreds of other families. And the rest of the district has to cower in fear of what's going to happen next. That's not a "reaction". That's an overreaction. It's because it's not trying to be a logical abstraction of the case. Of course it's an overreaction that was part of my point. Many legal systems even take strong emotions into account when judging on clear cut cases of overreaction. But in this thread the perspective of quite a few posters seem to be that Israel is doing this because they want to steal the land and that the terror attacks were just a convenient excuse or equally cynical theories. I would argue it's pretty easy to understand why Israeli politicians decided on this course of action, why the IDF acts as they do and why at least parts of the civilian society supports it. I can even emphasise with it even if I think it's wrong. Who’s arguing this? The prevailing opinion from that camp appears to be more ‘Israel was already doing this, after a grievous terror incident there’ll be less resistance and pushback to continuing to do this.’ Which isn’t in a completely different universe, but is different enough to justify a distinction being made. I stopped commenting but keept reading back when GH postulated that Israel probably didn't want to get the hostages back because they would lose their convinient excuse to ethnic cleansing. Another example is Nebuchads post at the very top of the page. I'm sure there are countless examples inbetween. This thread is mainly about how bad Israel has been in the past. If you bring up that Hamas is bad it gets handwaved. If you disagree on a negative labeling of Israel or their actions like using genocide or ethnostate theres pages of pushback. Anyway my response was prompted because of the post stating that there is zero intrest in discussing what Israel should do about Hamas. If it's brought up you get a list of what they shouldn't have done in the past and what they should stop with (settlements etc etc.). Implicitly that it's really their own fault and they should take one for the team and turn the other cheek. Which politically, psychologically and perhaps even morally is impossible right now. That you can't see it is not strange. Greta Thunbergs reaction when she publicly took a side with Fridays for future was basically "it's the rigth and natural thing to do I don't understand the criticism". When many simply doesn't want an environmental group to get entangled in other subjects. Feels the same way in this thread honestly from the majority of posts. Israel is always wrong, their intentions are always bad, historical actions are always their fault and zero attempts at trying to see the other sides view. To come full circle. The rise of Hamas is the result of historic oppression and conflict = I agree. Israels motivation for their actions is because they want to steal the land = Really? Extremely balanced take that I at least feel is common. Unless you think the starcraft community are all a bunch of anti-semites, which is definitely a hypothesis you can put forward, do you feel that a bunch of foreigners on a gaming website have any particular reason to be upset about Israel's behaviour? We're mostly from western countries, and thus "traditionally" pro-Israel. Something must have happened for you to have the feeling that most of the people here are arguing that "Israel is always wrong and their intentions are always bad". Could it be that it isn't about the always, but more about the current regime and the current war? I haven't seen anybody denying Hamas are a bunch of evil cunts and that the world would be a better place if they didn't exist. The problem isn't that anybody disagrees that Hamas are evil. The problem is that people think Israel is massively overreacting and (needlessly) causing a humanitarian crisis. Furthermore, the current regime can definitely not be trusted to make any headway in even trying to find a peaceful solution of coexistence with the remaining Palestinians even if they succeed in the stated mission of "eradicating Hamas". Finally, just because the focus is on criticizing Israel's past actions to contextualize the current conflict doesn't mean people are putting all the blame on Israel. Both sides have made every possible wrong choice they could make going back to at least 1948 and probably beyond. We can believe that Israel is an Apartheid regime oppressing Palestinians, and also that this is largely self-inflicted by Palestinians apparent complete inability to compromise at all on anything, and resorting to violence as their first, rather than last, solution.
I'm just observing that quantitativly there's a massive amounts of posts on the topic on Palestinian oppresion, how that effects their relationship with Israel, the relationship between Hamas and Palestinians (terrorists being a minority of a controlled population) meaning that mostly innocents are affected by the current war.
All in all explaining (but not condoning, important distinction) Hamas actions and the current political situation in general from that point of view.
And then on the other hand Israels current actions since the attack is mainly because they want to etnically cleanse Gaza because they want the land.
Which most posters think sounds about right I guess 🤔?
Sure, handwaving away Hamas bad no disagreement and no discussion explains maybe some of discrepancies but at least to me not all of it and certainly not about the current motivations in Israel.
Also I'd peg most of you as left leaning (for some probably a little more than leaning 😉) which traditionally are extremely pro Palestine. But I could be wrong.
|
|
|
On December 07 2023 22:29 JimmiC wrote:
If Isreal has always wanted the land and to ethnically cleanse Palestine, not to mention their allies support them no matter what, there is a massive power imbalance, Hamas is not a real threat, they do not care about international law.
Why didn’t they just take it and expel the Palestinians after the 6 day war?
Why have they not everyday since?
Why not do it right after Oct 7?
Why not creat a migrant crisis for the Middle East to deal with?
What is stopping Isreal from completing their long held private plan?
Who are you arguing with? Who holds these strawman opinions you are gotchaing so effectively here?
|
On December 07 2023 22:29 JimmiC wrote:
If Isreal has always wanted the land and to ethnically cleanse Palestine, not to mention their allies support them no matter what, there is a massive power imbalance, Hamas is not a real threat, they do not care about international law.
Why didn’t they just take it and expel the Palestinians after the 6 day war?
Why have they not everyday since?
Why not do it right after Oct 7?
Why not creat a migrant crisis for the Middle East to deal with?
What is stopping Isreal from completing their long held private plan?
The short answer is: you are stopping them.
If they do it in a slightly less obvious way like they're doing, you and people like you are more likely to miss it and continue to be a lot less critical of Israel than you otherwise would be. If they just started bombing 20000 Palestinians to death without Oct 7th, you wouldn't be defending them as hard, Kitten wouldn't sympathize with them taking revenge against a pedophile.
If western public opinion in general, but more specifically US public opinion, turns against Israel there's no chance that they can continue their project. Bibi has known that for years. So what you do is you find the line between what you get to do and not do, and you tread that line. When specific events happen, they change the scope of what you can get away with. The israeli government is pretty good at it btw, for example this thread has zero posts between 2021 and Oct 7th 2023, and they had been continuing their project the whole time.
Here's a report about an israeli think tank making the same claim as me: the Hamas attack provides a “rare opportunity” to cleanse Gaza. It's not a reaction, it's an opportunity. We had been wanting to do this but couldn't, and now perhaps we can.
Concerning the Tian an Men massacre, Benjamin Netanyahu, at the time Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Ambassador to the United Nations and an American businessman with the Boston Consulting Group, was reported by the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot in November, 1989, to have said the following:
“Israel should have taken advantage of the suppression of the demonstrations in China, while the world’s attention was focused on these events, and should have carried out mass deportations of Arabs from the territories. Unfortunately, this plan I proposed did not gain support, yet I still suggest to put it into action.”
(source)
I put this as the source because that's where I found it, but I'm sure a random wordpress is not something that you trust, so I quickly googled the quote to see others mentioning it and here's for example the LA Times mentioning it (behind a paywall), hopefully that lends it some credibility for you.
There's also this old video in which Netanyahu says that he's not afraid of backlash because he knows how to manipulate the US. Here's an article talking about it.
|
Generally speaking evil people (just as almost all people) think of themselves as good while only their enemies are evil. The other type of evil people recognize that they're doing evil, but justify it as their hand being forced to combat a greater evil. I'd say both of these motives apply to both sides of this conflict.
People who do evil just for evil's sake and no greater motive are rare. They're being enabled by this conflict, but they're a minority among each group.
If some people in Israel have the deliberate goal to commit theft and ethnic cleansing, those people would fall squarely into the third category. So they can't be very numerous.
It's more likely that the people who are in favor of such heinous crimes don't directly push for them but rather passively condone them as a consequence of the conflict. In this way they can justify continuing the conflict without explicitly pushing for the crimes that are associated with it. That would make them part of the second type that does evil for the sake of combatting greater evil. Although it is plausible that they don't even recognize that they're doing evil to begin with, which would make them part of the first type.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
