|
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. |
United States41548 Posts
On May 19 2021 07:51 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 19:18 Broetchenholer wrote:At the moment of the first massacres of Jews in in Palestina, 1929, there were already militant nationalistic movements on both sides. Sources are pretty scarce on the internet, but i think it is safe to say that the Jewish Zionists were not deescalating anything and used the mandate of the British to create a Jewish state to excerpt a lot of influence over areas they were not settling in. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots:Several months earlier Zionist leader Menachem Ussishkin gave a speech demanding "a Jewish state without compromises and without concessions, from Dan to Be'er Sheva, from the great sea to the desert, including Transjordan." He concluded, "Let us swear that the Jewish people will not rest and will not remain silent until its national home is built on our Mt Moriah," a reference to the Temple Mount.[11] Now, i am sure he intended to do that without harming, displacing or subjugating the people already living there. And of course the arabian uprising in 1929 and later were largely arab mobs killing Jews. But to say that the Jewish zionists were just defending themselves and then later might have become terrorist organisations is also conveniently ignoring the beginnings of the state. And while some of these settlers were just fleeing progroms and persecution in eastern europe and were just happy to have a new home, others were militantly pushing the idea of creating their holy land. It's messy and complicated, but the situation is certainly not as easy as "they started it, we had to defend ourselves". I mostly agree. I'm not saying the Jews were innocent in all of this. I merely pointed out the numerous atrocities committed by the Palestinian side as counterweight to Kwark's one-sided depiction of the events, which pretty much left them out entirely.
My narrative stopped in early 1948 because I was giving background to why I blame the British and that’s when they left. I do have issues with a lot of what the Arabs did subsequently but I didn’t ascribe a lot of agency to Palestine in the British mandate period because it was not a self governing state and could not be expected to have national policy solutions. I wasn’t purposefully excluding them from the narrative, the narrative was limited in scope to the period of British rule and as such Palestinian agency was limited.
|
|
|
On May 19 2021 05:09 KwarK wrote:
One thing to note is the demographics of the Gaza Strip, over 5,000 inhabitants per km2. That’s comparable to London (5,700). The median age in Gaza is 18 years. To be clear, that means that 50% of the inhabitants of Gaza are below the age of 18.
There can be no attack on Gaza that does not result in killing children because Gaza is a sardine can filled with children. When people suggest the reason Israeli bombs kill so many Palestinian children is because Hamas are using them as human shields you should remember these numbers. There isn’t a designated rocket launch site in Gaza that is cleared of children and inhabited only by militants for Israel to safely bomb, there couldn’t be. It’s not that they’re deliberately launching rockets from schools, it’s that they have been compressed into a tiny space filled with children.
The question is therefore “if it is impossible to bomb Gaza without bombing children is it ethical to bomb Gaza in self defence?” Different people have different answers to this. Some people argue that the violence of a rocket launch must be met with violence in return, even if that response kills far more civilians than the rocket. Others argue that as a state actor that is responsible for cramming those civilians into Gaza Israel should follow stricter rules of engagement regarding bombing children. One thing is undisputed, the Israeli attacks kill far, far more civilians than the Palestinian attacks.
Edit to add: This question is also often phrased by apologists as “does Israel have a right to defend itself (by dropping bombs on children)?” to which the answer is clearly yes. I believe that the question misses the point. Can it not be true that Israel has the right to drop bombs on Palestinian children AND that it should be extremely judicious in exercising that right?
I'd like to respond to this specifically, because this in my opinion is something that is often not fully understood.
Two things are both true at the same time:
1) Israel cannot retaliate against Hamas without risking the lives of innocent civilians, even if they tried. Every missile sent towards a Hamas target has a chance of killing innocent civilians.
2) Reducing civilian casualties when retaliating against Hamas is being made virtually impossible by Hamas using what's called "human shields" (presumably to make Israel look as bad - or worse - as themselves). This means that Hamas is actively increasing civilian casualties during Israeli retaliation attacks. If Hamas wasn't doing this, civilian casualties in Gaza could and most likely would be a lot lower.
|
On May 19 2021 09:40 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 05:09 KwarK wrote:
One thing to note is the demographics of the Gaza Strip, over 5,000 inhabitants per km2. That’s comparable to London (5,700). The median age in Gaza is 18 years. To be clear, that means that 50% of the inhabitants of Gaza are below the age of 18.
There can be no attack on Gaza that does not result in killing children because Gaza is a sardine can filled with children. When people suggest the reason Israeli bombs kill so many Palestinian children is because Hamas are using them as human shields you should remember these numbers. There isn’t a designated rocket launch site in Gaza that is cleared of children and inhabited only by militants for Israel to safely bomb, there couldn’t be. It’s not that they’re deliberately launching rockets from schools, it’s that they have been compressed into a tiny space filled with children.
The question is therefore “if it is impossible to bomb Gaza without bombing children is it ethical to bomb Gaza in self defence?” Different people have different answers to this. Some people argue that the violence of a rocket launch must be met with violence in return, even if that response kills far more civilians than the rocket. Others argue that as a state actor that is responsible for cramming those civilians into Gaza Israel should follow stricter rules of engagement regarding bombing children. One thing is undisputed, the Israeli attacks kill far, far more civilians than the Palestinian attacks.
Edit to add: This question is also often phrased by apologists as “does Israel have a right to defend itself (by dropping bombs on children)?” to which the answer is clearly yes. I believe that the question misses the point. Can it not be true that Israel has the right to drop bombs on Palestinian children AND that it should be extremely judicious in exercising that right? I'd like to respond to this specifically, because this in my opinion is something that is often not fully understood. Two things are both true at the same time: 1) Israel cannot retaliate against Hamas without risking the lives of innocent civilians, even if they tried. Every missile sent towards a Hamas target has a chance of killing innocent civilians. 2) Reducing civilian casualties when retaliating against Hamas is being made virtually impossible by Hamas using what's called "human shields" (presumably to make Israel look as bad - or worse - as themselves). This means that Hamas is actively increasing civilian casualties during Israeli retaliation attacks. If Hamas wasn't doing this, civilian casualties in Gaza could and most likely would be a lot lower.
I don't particularly see why retaliation is necessary. Is oppressing the population, taking their homes, taking their jobs, disappearing them, keeping them imprisoned in Gaza, letting Israelis kick the shit out of them whenever they want, forgetting to investigate their murders etc. etc. not retaliation enough?
|
United States41548 Posts
On May 19 2021 09:40 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 05:09 KwarK wrote:
One thing to note is the demographics of the Gaza Strip, over 5,000 inhabitants per km2. That’s comparable to London (5,700). The median age in Gaza is 18 years. To be clear, that means that 50% of the inhabitants of Gaza are below the age of 18.
There can be no attack on Gaza that does not result in killing children because Gaza is a sardine can filled with children. When people suggest the reason Israeli bombs kill so many Palestinian children is because Hamas are using them as human shields you should remember these numbers. There isn’t a designated rocket launch site in Gaza that is cleared of children and inhabited only by militants for Israel to safely bomb, there couldn’t be. It’s not that they’re deliberately launching rockets from schools, it’s that they have been compressed into a tiny space filled with children.
The question is therefore “if it is impossible to bomb Gaza without bombing children is it ethical to bomb Gaza in self defence?” Different people have different answers to this. Some people argue that the violence of a rocket launch must be met with violence in return, even if that response kills far more civilians than the rocket. Others argue that as a state actor that is responsible for cramming those civilians into Gaza Israel should follow stricter rules of engagement regarding bombing children. One thing is undisputed, the Israeli attacks kill far, far more civilians than the Palestinian attacks.
Edit to add: This question is also often phrased by apologists as “does Israel have a right to defend itself (by dropping bombs on children)?” to which the answer is clearly yes. I believe that the question misses the point. Can it not be true that Israel has the right to drop bombs on Palestinian children AND that it should be extremely judicious in exercising that right? I'd like to respond to this specifically, because this in my opinion is something that is often not fully understood. Two things are both true at the same time: 1) Israel cannot retaliate against Hamas without risking the lives of innocent civilians, even if they tried. Every missile sent towards a Hamas target has a chance of killing innocent civilians. 2) Reducing civilian casualties when retaliating against Hamas is being made virtually impossible by Hamas using what's called "human shields" (presumably to make Israel look as bad - or worse - as themselves). This means that Hamas is actively increasing civilian casualties during Israeli retaliation attacks. If Hamas wasn't doing this, civilian casualties in Gaza could and most likely would be a lot lower.
1) Just because any attack has a chance of civilian casualties does not mean that all attacks have equal chance of equal civilian casualties. You failed to understand my post. Israel has the right to defend itself, even if that may cause civilian casualties, but Israel is not forced to always engage in maximum retaliation regardless of the risk to civilians. Israel does not always have to use that right. It can judgmentally choose not to retaliate if there is no good target.
2) I explicitly addressed the human shields myth. Where would you like Hamas to launch rockets from?
|
On May 19 2021 10:08 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't particularly see why retaliation is necessary. Is oppressing the population, taking their homes, taking their jobs, disappearing them, keeping them imprisoned in Gaza, letting Israelis kick the shit out of them whenever they want, forgetting to investigate their murders etc. etc. not retaliation enough?
That argument is all over the place, so I can't respond to it.
On May 19 2021 10:25 KwarK wrote:
1) Just because any attack has a chance of civilian casualties does not mean that all attacks have equal chance of equal civilian casualties. You failed to understand my post. Israel has the right to defend itself, even if that may cause civilian casualties, but Israel is not forced to always engage in maximum retaliation regardless of the risk to civilians. Israel does not always have to use that right. It can judgmentally choose not to retaliate if there is no good target.
2) I explicitly addressed the human shields myth. Where would you like Hamas to launch rockets from?
Maybe you'll be more inclined to agree if I say that the practice of human shields was used both by the IDF and by Hamas? And that Israel has in numerous cases not given civilians enough time to evacuate? And that Israel has in some cases attacked areas after announcing otherwise? As usual it's not a one-sided issue.
There are credible sources that have reported on the human shields practice by Hamas. Calling it a "myth" isn't right. You can call it a controversial question because in some cases it's not always clear, and then I'd be a lot more inclined to agree, but it's not a "myth".
https://www.haaretz.com/hamas-acknowledges-civilian-area-rocket-fire-1.5264400
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-hamas-civilians-human-shields
|
United States41548 Posts
On May 19 2021 10:52 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 10:08 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't particularly see why retaliation is necessary. Is oppressing the population, taking their homes, taking their jobs, disappearing them, keeping them imprisoned in Gaza, letting Israelis kick the shit out of them whenever they want, forgetting to investigate their murders etc. etc. not retaliation enough?
That argument is all over the place, so I can't respond to it. Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 10:25 KwarK wrote:
1) Just because any attack has a chance of civilian casualties does not mean that all attacks have equal chance of equal civilian casualties. You failed to understand my post. Israel has the right to defend itself, even if that may cause civilian casualties, but Israel is not forced to always engage in maximum retaliation regardless of the risk to civilians. Israel does not always have to use that right. It can judgmentally choose not to retaliate if there is no good target.
2) I explicitly addressed the human shields myth. Where would you like Hamas to launch rockets from? Maybe you'll be more inclined to agree if I say that the practice of human shields was used both by the IDF and by Hamas? And that Israel has in numerous cases not given civilians enough time to evacuate? And that Israel has in some cases attacked areas after announcing otherwise? As usual it's not a one-sided issue. There are credible sources that have reported on the human shields practice by Hamas. Calling it a "myth" isn't right. You can call it a controversial question because in some cases it's not always clear, and then I'd be a lot more inclined to agree, but it's not a "myth". https://www.haaretz.com/hamas-acknowledges-civilian-area-rocket-fire-1.5264400https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-hamas-civilians-human-shields
Your source is arguing my point, not yours. My argument was that Gaza is extremely densely populated with civilians, half of whom are children, to the point that there are only civilian areas of Gaza. There’s no designated rocket launch zone in Gaza, it’s all civilian areas, Israel cannot bomb Gaza without bombing civilian areas because Gaza is a civilian area. The accusation of human shields is based on a misunderstanding of what Gaza is, they’re not seeking out civilians to use as shields, the whole place is packed with civilians.
You responded to that with sources where Hamas acknowledged they launched rockets from civilian areas in Gaza. Do you see why that proves my point about how there can’t possibly be a designated military rocket launch field in the middle of Gaza and not your point about human shields?
To quote your source
It could be argued that there is nowhere else for the militants to place their missile batteries, given the urban density of the Gaza Strip.
The enclave is sometimes said to be the most densely populated place on earth, although this is an exaggeration. It is very crowded, though less so than Macau, Singapore, Hong Kong and other cities.
|
On May 19 2021 10:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 09:40 Magic Powers wrote:On May 19 2021 05:09 KwarK wrote:
One thing to note is the demographics of the Gaza Strip, over 5,000 inhabitants per km2. That’s comparable to London (5,700). The median age in Gaza is 18 years. To be clear, that means that 50% of the inhabitants of Gaza are below the age of 18.
There can be no attack on Gaza that does not result in killing children because Gaza is a sardine can filled with children. When people suggest the reason Israeli bombs kill so many Palestinian children is because Hamas are using them as human shields you should remember these numbers. There isn’t a designated rocket launch site in Gaza that is cleared of children and inhabited only by militants for Israel to safely bomb, there couldn’t be. It’s not that they’re deliberately launching rockets from schools, it’s that they have been compressed into a tiny space filled with children.
The question is therefore “if it is impossible to bomb Gaza without bombing children is it ethical to bomb Gaza in self defence?” Different people have different answers to this. Some people argue that the violence of a rocket launch must be met with violence in return, even if that response kills far more civilians than the rocket. Others argue that as a state actor that is responsible for cramming those civilians into Gaza Israel should follow stricter rules of engagement regarding bombing children. One thing is undisputed, the Israeli attacks kill far, far more civilians than the Palestinian attacks.
Edit to add: This question is also often phrased by apologists as “does Israel have a right to defend itself (by dropping bombs on children)?” to which the answer is clearly yes. I believe that the question misses the point. Can it not be true that Israel has the right to drop bombs on Palestinian children AND that it should be extremely judicious in exercising that right? I'd like to respond to this specifically, because this in my opinion is something that is often not fully understood. Two things are both true at the same time: 1) Israel cannot retaliate against Hamas without risking the lives of innocent civilians, even if they tried. Every missile sent towards a Hamas target has a chance of killing innocent civilians. 2) Reducing civilian casualties when retaliating against Hamas is being made virtually impossible by Hamas using what's called "human shields" (presumably to make Israel look as bad - or worse - as themselves). This means that Hamas is actively increasing civilian casualties during Israeli retaliation attacks. If Hamas wasn't doing this, civilian casualties in Gaza could and most likely would be a lot lower. 1) Just because any attack has a chance of civilian casualties does not mean that all attacks have equal chance of equal civilian casualties. You failed to understand my post. Israel has the right to defend itself, even if that may cause civilian casualties, but Israel is not forced to always engage in maximum retaliation regardless of the risk to civilians. Israel does not always have to use that right. It can judgmentally choose not to retaliate if there is no good target. 2) I explicitly addressed the human shields myth. Where would you like Hamas to launch rockets from?
Good point. All I have seen is "Israel has a right to defend itself" but nothing about degree. I can see why people believe Israel has a right to retaliate against Hamas rocket strikes but does that justify their current level of bombings on Gaza? Certainly they do not have the right to nuke Gaza, for example.
Edit: Also, it is certainly possible Hamas is using human shields but it must be backed up with large amounts of evidence, not just isolated incidents, of things like Hamas ordering civilians to stay in areas under attack.
|
On May 19 2021 11:26 KwarK wrote:Your source is arguing my point, not yours. My argument was that Gaza is extremely densely populated with civilians, half of whom are children, to the point that there are only civilian areas of Gaza. There’s no designated rocket launch zone in Gaza, it’s all civilian areas, Israel cannot bomb Gaza without bombing civilian areas because Gaza is a civilian area. The accusation of human shields is based on a misunderstanding of what Gaza is, they’re not seeking out civilians to use as shields, the whole place is packed with civilians. You responded to that with sources where Hamas acknowledged they launched rockets from civilian areas in Gaza. Do you see why that proves my point about how there can’t possibly be a designated military rocket launch field in the middle of Gaza and not your point about human shields? To quote your source Show nested quote + It could be argued that there is nowhere else for the militants to place their missile batteries, given the urban density of the Gaza Strip.
The enclave is sometimes said to be the most densely populated place on earth, although this is an exaggeration. It is very crowded, though less so than Macau, Singapore, Hong Kong and other cities.
I posted two sources, not one. I added the second link for more context, the focus should be on the first source.
This is another link to the same story from the first source in case it's paywalled.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/hamas-quietly-admits-it-fired-rockets-from-civilian-areas/380149/
The fact that Gaza is very densely populated doesn't make Hamas' case of continuously provoking retaliation strikes any better, it makes it worse. If they aimed their weapons at military targets instead of civilians, they'd be able to make a much better case for themselves. But the fact that they attack Israeli civilians and in that process willfully put their own (also largely innocent) people at risk is a damning argument against them.
How do you rectify this?
|
On May 19 2021 11:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 10:52 Magic Powers wrote:On May 19 2021 10:08 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't particularly see why retaliation is necessary. Is oppressing the population, taking their homes, taking their jobs, disappearing them, keeping them imprisoned in Gaza, letting Israelis kick the shit out of them whenever they want, forgetting to investigate their murders etc. etc. not retaliation enough?
That argument is all over the place, so I can't respond to it. On May 19 2021 10:25 KwarK wrote:
1) Just because any attack has a chance of civilian casualties does not mean that all attacks have equal chance of equal civilian casualties. You failed to understand my post. Israel has the right to defend itself, even if that may cause civilian casualties, but Israel is not forced to always engage in maximum retaliation regardless of the risk to civilians. Israel does not always have to use that right. It can judgmentally choose not to retaliate if there is no good target.
2) I explicitly addressed the human shields myth. Where would you like Hamas to launch rockets from? Maybe you'll be more inclined to agree if I say that the practice of human shields was used both by the IDF and by Hamas? And that Israel has in numerous cases not given civilians enough time to evacuate? And that Israel has in some cases attacked areas after announcing otherwise? As usual it's not a one-sided issue. There are credible sources that have reported on the human shields practice by Hamas. Calling it a "myth" isn't right. You can call it a controversial question because in some cases it's not always clear, and then I'd be a lot more inclined to agree, but it's not a "myth". https://www.haaretz.com/hamas-acknowledges-civilian-area-rocket-fire-1.5264400https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-hamas-civilians-human-shields Your source is arguing my point, not yours. My argument was that Gaza is extremely densely populated with civilians, half of whom are children, to the point that there are only civilian areas of Gaza. There’s no designated rocket launch zone in Gaza, it’s all civilian areas, Israel cannot bomb Gaza without bombing civilian areas because Gaza is a civilian area. The accusation of human shields is based on a misunderstanding of what Gaza is, they’re not seeking out civilians to use as shields, the whole place is packed with civilians. You responded to that with sources where Hamas acknowledged they launched rockets from civilian areas in Gaza. Do you see why that proves my point about how there can’t possibly be a designated military rocket launch field in the middle of Gaza and not your point about human shields? To quote your source Show nested quote + It could be argued that there is nowhere else for the militants to place their missile batteries, given the urban density of the Gaza Strip.
The enclave is sometimes said to be the most densely populated place on earth, although this is an exaggeration. It is very crowded, though less so than Macau, Singapore, Hong Kong and other cities.
On population density it's also important to consider vertical living space (which afaik most statistics don't). Those other places have dozens of skyscrapers and Gaza has recently had some of its tallest buildings flattened.
For days now, Israeli fighter jets have targeted several landmark buildings in the heart of Gaza City, completely flattening at least two high-rise blocks. Hanadi, a tower with a mix of residential apartments and commercial offices
www.aljazeera.com
|
On May 19 2021 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:(I guess this goes here now?) The US has blocked a 3rd attempt from the UN security council to issue a joint statement calling for a ceasefire. The US's enabling of the continued bombings by Israel is wholly unconscionable to me. Show nested quote +A third United Nations Security Council emergency meeting in a week – amid the deadly Israeli offensive in Gaza – has again ended with no concrete outcome after the United States blocked a joint statement calling for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
The meeting on Sunday came after the US reportedly twice blocked over the last week resolutions that would have condemned Israel’s military response and called for a ceasefire. Nearly 200 people, including 58 children, have been killed in the intense bombing of the besieged enclave of two million people.
The latest round of inaction also comes as US President Joe Biden has given no signs of plans to step up public pressure on Israel, instead repeatedly stressing Israel’s right to defend itself. www.aljazeera.com
Nobody who knows that the US gave 3.3 billion in military aid to Israel in the latest budget and supplies Israel with the latest weaponry is surprised by this news.The standard line is the same "Israel has a right to defend itself".The Australian PM stated this just yesterday.
What i was surprised by was Biden joking about running over a reporter for asking a question about the situation in Israel.People there are dying Joe, not a time for bad taste jokes.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-jokingly-threatens-run-over-193708378.html
Biden jokingly threatens to run over a reporter asking about Israel as he test-drives new electric Ford truck
"Mr. President, can I ask you a quick question on Israel before you drive away, since it's so important?" a reporter said.
"No, you can't - not unless you get in front of the car as I step on it. I'm only teasing," Biden said, with laughter heard in the background. Then he floored the vehicle and drove away, to the apparent delight of the reporters nearby.
|
United States41548 Posts
On May 19 2021 11:46 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 11:26 KwarK wrote:Your source is arguing my point, not yours. My argument was that Gaza is extremely densely populated with civilians, half of whom are children, to the point that there are only civilian areas of Gaza. There’s no designated rocket launch zone in Gaza, it’s all civilian areas, Israel cannot bomb Gaza without bombing civilian areas because Gaza is a civilian area. The accusation of human shields is based on a misunderstanding of what Gaza is, they’re not seeking out civilians to use as shields, the whole place is packed with civilians. You responded to that with sources where Hamas acknowledged they launched rockets from civilian areas in Gaza. Do you see why that proves my point about how there can’t possibly be a designated military rocket launch field in the middle of Gaza and not your point about human shields? To quote your source It could be argued that there is nowhere else for the militants to place their missile batteries, given the urban density of the Gaza Strip.
The enclave is sometimes said to be the most densely populated place on earth, although this is an exaggeration. It is very crowded, though less so than Macau, Singapore, Hong Kong and other cities. I posted two sources, not one. I added the second link for more context, the focus should be on the first source. This is another link to the same story from the first source in case it's paywalled. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/hamas-quietly-admits-it-fired-rockets-from-civilian-areas/380149/The fact that Gaza is very densely populated doesn't make Hamas' case of continuously provoking retaliation strikes any better, it makes it worse. If they aimed their weapons at military targets instead of civilians, they'd be able to make a much better case for themselves. But the fact that they attack Israeli civilians and in that process willfully put their own (also largely innocent) people at risk is a damning argument against them. How do you rectify this?
I’m not in charge of Hamas policy and am not responsible for rectifying their errors.
|
On May 19 2021 13:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 11:46 Magic Powers wrote:On May 19 2021 11:26 KwarK wrote:Your source is arguing my point, not yours. My argument was that Gaza is extremely densely populated with civilians, half of whom are children, to the point that there are only civilian areas of Gaza. There’s no designated rocket launch zone in Gaza, it’s all civilian areas, Israel cannot bomb Gaza without bombing civilian areas because Gaza is a civilian area. The accusation of human shields is based on a misunderstanding of what Gaza is, they’re not seeking out civilians to use as shields, the whole place is packed with civilians. You responded to that with sources where Hamas acknowledged they launched rockets from civilian areas in Gaza. Do you see why that proves my point about how there can’t possibly be a designated military rocket launch field in the middle of Gaza and not your point about human shields? To quote your source It could be argued that there is nowhere else for the militants to place their missile batteries, given the urban density of the Gaza Strip.
The enclave is sometimes said to be the most densely populated place on earth, although this is an exaggeration. It is very crowded, though less so than Macau, Singapore, Hong Kong and other cities. I posted two sources, not one. I added the second link for more context, the focus should be on the first source. This is another link to the same story from the first source in case it's paywalled. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/hamas-quietly-admits-it-fired-rockets-from-civilian-areas/380149/The fact that Gaza is very densely populated doesn't make Hamas' case of continuously provoking retaliation strikes any better, it makes it worse. If they aimed their weapons at military targets instead of civilians, they'd be able to make a much better case for themselves. But the fact that they attack Israeli civilians and in that process willfully put their own (also largely innocent) people at risk is a damning argument against them. How do you rectify this? I’m not in charge of Hamas policy and am not responsible for rectifying their errors.
I know that you're an observer like all of us and not involved in the conflict yourself, so I must've used the wrong term. What I meant to ask for is your judgement of Hamas' and Israel's level of responsibility in regards to civilian casualties.
Hamas can obviously prevent the vast majority of the civilian casualties on the Israeli side by not purposely targeting them. By doing so they would also have a better case asking Israel to try much harder to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza, despite the difficulties of that task. The point should be obvious: Hamas has no difficulties whatsoever in reducing civilian casualties, whereas for Israel that's not as easy relatively speaking.
From that, the conclusion that Israel is mostly to blame for civilian casualties in Gaza is not obvious at all. Hamas appears to have a lot more say in that than Israel.
|
United States41548 Posts
On May 19 2021 13:37 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 13:11 KwarK wrote:On May 19 2021 11:46 Magic Powers wrote:On May 19 2021 11:26 KwarK wrote:Your source is arguing my point, not yours. My argument was that Gaza is extremely densely populated with civilians, half of whom are children, to the point that there are only civilian areas of Gaza. There’s no designated rocket launch zone in Gaza, it’s all civilian areas, Israel cannot bomb Gaza without bombing civilian areas because Gaza is a civilian area. The accusation of human shields is based on a misunderstanding of what Gaza is, they’re not seeking out civilians to use as shields, the whole place is packed with civilians. You responded to that with sources where Hamas acknowledged they launched rockets from civilian areas in Gaza. Do you see why that proves my point about how there can’t possibly be a designated military rocket launch field in the middle of Gaza and not your point about human shields? To quote your source It could be argued that there is nowhere else for the militants to place their missile batteries, given the urban density of the Gaza Strip.
The enclave is sometimes said to be the most densely populated place on earth, although this is an exaggeration. It is very crowded, though less so than Macau, Singapore, Hong Kong and other cities. I posted two sources, not one. I added the second link for more context, the focus should be on the first source. This is another link to the same story from the first source in case it's paywalled. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/hamas-quietly-admits-it-fired-rockets-from-civilian-areas/380149/The fact that Gaza is very densely populated doesn't make Hamas' case of continuously provoking retaliation strikes any better, it makes it worse. If they aimed their weapons at military targets instead of civilians, they'd be able to make a much better case for themselves. But the fact that they attack Israeli civilians and in that process willfully put their own (also largely innocent) people at risk is a damning argument against them. How do you rectify this? I’m not in charge of Hamas policy and am not responsible for rectifying their errors. I know that you're an observer like all of us and not involved in the conflict yourself, so I must've used the wrong term. What I meant to ask for is your judgement of Hamas' and Israel's level of responsibility in regards to civilian casualties. Hamas can obviously prevent the vast majority of the civilian casualties on the Israeli side by not purposely targeting them. By doing so they would also have a better case asking Israel to try much harder to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza, despite the difficulties of that task. The point should be obvious: Hamas has no difficulties whatsoever in reducing civilian casualties, whereas for Israel that's not as easy relatively speaking. From that, the conclusion that Israel is mostly to blame for civilian casualties in Gaza is not obvious at all. Hamas appears to have a lot more say in that than Israel.
Hamas are responsible for the people killed by their rockets and Israel are responsible for the people killed by their bombs. It seems a very obvious conclusion to me. That’s how weapons work.
|
On May 19 2021 14:19 KwarK wrote:
Hamas are responsible for the people killed by their rockets and Israel are responsible for the people killed by their bombs. It seems a very obvious conclusion to me. That’s how weapons work.
That would mean every country fighting a defensive war is responsible for every civilian death they've caused during that war, no matter how impossible it is to prevent some or any of those deaths in the pursuit of defeating the aggressor.
It would mean the whole concept of "collateral damage" goes out the window.
It would mean there's nothing wrong with using human shields.
It would mean launching attacks from within a civilian population is completely acceptable.
Do you not understand the implications of that, or is it that you agree with the implications?
|
@Magic You previously said:
The situation is indeed horrible and unfair for the citizens of Gaza, but their leadership isn't giving Israel an out.
I'm curious what you see as the "out[s]" Israel is offering the leadership/people being displaced by* expanding illegal settlements, if any?
|
Magic powers' framing of the situation of poor innocent Israel just wanting to be left alone but being forced into retaliatory strikes by Hamas is so utterly, completely wrong I don't even know what to do with it.
Every single day Israel provokes Hamas into retaliatory strikes. Every day they fuck with the Palestinians for their own amusement. What Hamas does is retaliation, what Israel does is ensuring the conflict continues ad infinitum.
The issue of settlements and the continued daily oppression of Palestinian civilians is NOT separate from the escalations in violence, it is the most foundational part of it.
|
On May 19 2021 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:@Magic You previously said: Show nested quote +The situation is indeed horrible and unfair for the citizens of Gaza, but their leadership isn't giving Israel an out. I'm curious what you see as the "out[s]" Israel is offering the leadership/people of the expanding illegal settlements, if any?
The "out" is a peaceful resolution, i.e. an end to the bloody conflict and a start of diplomatic relations.
There is no out for Israel as long as Hamas:
- kill innocent Israeli civilians in retaliation to non-lethal discrimination by the Israeli government
and
- call for an end to the State of Israel
Those two factors alone put Israel into an impossible position. They have no way of ending the conflict on their own end. They need Hamas to enable diplomatic talks first, and for that the above two things need to change.
Hamas have no interest in that, for them it's all or nothing. Hence Israel has no out.
|
On May 19 2021 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:@Magic You previously said: Show nested quote +The situation is indeed horrible and unfair for the citizens of Gaza, but their leadership isn't giving Israel an out. I'm curious what you see as the "out[s]" Israel is offering the leadership/people of the expanding illegal settlements, if any?
This is conflating West Bank/Gaza issues.
The current troubles center around the Gaza Strip. In 2005 Israel unilaterally dismantled all Gazan settlements, and removed all its police forces from inside the strip. It now exercises strict border enforcement on its side, but it does not excecise any normal governmental powers in the Strip. It is, effectively, an autonomous zone, its own country that hasn't established a functioning government, and/or unincorporated territory.
This was, at the time, considered a trial balloon by the Sharon government and a possible model for what could happen in the West Bank as well. It was a widely praised move by the UN, US, EU, etc. Sharon planned on doing the same in the West Bank (which would have addressed your settlement issue) The problem is, that the plan was and has been a total failure. Giving the Gazan's autonomy resulted in them electing a terrorist group as their government. That government does even less than ISIS did with respect to establishing a real government with schools, infrastructure, a tax system, etc. Instead it just grifts off its citizens and does attacks like these, of which no tangible goal aside from civilian casualties on both sides of the border can be imagined.
So yeah, the best good faith plan to fix the problem you pointed out was a total bust.
|
On May 19 2021 14:58 Jockmcplop wrote:
Magic powers' framing of the situation of poor innocent Israel just wanting to be left alone but being forced into retaliatory strikes by Hamas is so utterly, completely wrong I don't even know what to do with it.
Do you think killing innocent civilians is acceptable under any circumstances other than it being collateral damage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
