|
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 February 02 2024 23:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:On February 02 2024 21:04 schaf wrote:On February 02 2024 21:02 Magic Powers wrote:On February 02 2024 20:27 schaf wrote:On February 02 2024 20:04 Magic Powers wrote:
[...]
Here we have Jewish people committing an atrocity of the same nature that Hamas is being accused of, and yet... there's of course no way Jewish settlers, the IDF or the Israeli administration could be just as evil as Hamas. There's just absolutely no way.
[...] One person died, it's not even remotely comparable. The Israeli Government condemned it. Do you recall what Hamas leaders said about Oct 7th? And they are not accused, they themselves say they did it and that they will do it again. "One person died"? In what reality do you live? Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed in the West bank over the past few months. Well you referenced that one event You're misrepresenting reality if you leave it at "one person died". The reality is that Palestinians in the West bank are being killed at an unprecedented rate. This is rarely being mentioned in this thread, and it's never been acknowledged by the individuals around here who have an anti-Palestinian bias. Whenever I've mentioned it, practically no one has acknowledged it. There's no discussion about how evil Jewish settlers are and how this would impact the conflict at large, and whether or not this proves that Palestinian support for Hamas is within reason, and not born out of evil. Furthermore, it's not like those Jewish settlers wouldn't have killed more Palestinians if they could've. They've been demonstrating in recent months how willing they are to commit crimes of the same nature as that of Hamas. Hundreds of deaths prove their intent. And have you seen GH's contributions to that part of the conflict? The TikTok trends? You need better sources and then your posts will make a lot more sense. And of course Resistance fighters are not all good people. But once you start raping women of all ages and killing babies I would hope you would see that a line has been crossed.
This reminds me of a previous discussion and wanted to share some findings, this was after a really quick search, there may be more
Regarding Jailed Palestinians
UN Accusation of Sexual Abuse
Accounts from 2 Freed Inmates
Regarding IDF
Bedouin Gang Rape
In response to those guilty being charged
31 out of 1500
Looks like the IDF itself isn't carrying out rape/sexual assualt on Gazan civies, however those jailed/in administrative detention are suffering sexual abuse as a tactic to force a confession out of the accused party.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland23339 Posts
On February 03 2024 02:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2024 02:50 WombaT wrote:On February 03 2024 02:16 JimmiC wrote:On February 03 2024 01:02 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 13:22 RenSC2 wrote:On February 02 2024 09:49 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 09:33 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 08:39 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Literally all I’ve said is stop posting in an irritating manner, when you don’t you are a valuable contributor. I’ve seen you do better, you’re eminently capable of it, if I didn’t think you were I wouldn’t bother raising it.
If people were unfairly describing you as a Zionist stooge or something you wouldn’t like it would you? But you’ll continually tar people as Hamas sympathisers even if their previous posts have roundly condemned them.
I answered a specific question, only for you to respond with another, different question that I’m somehow be supposed to answer before it was proffered. That I’ve apparently backtracked on despite never having said anything about it to begin with.
It’s not an ideological issue either, I’ve had nothing but civil interactions with Cerebrate, who I think it’s fair to say is quite pro-Israel (while not being dismissive of the Palestinian side of the equation), and I value our exchanges.
I’m posting this in thread rather than via PM so if folks consider my interpretation as unfair they’re free to push back.
Otherwise I’m not fussed on engaging unless you stop doing the things that multiple posters have constructively outlined, you do you man. If nothing else you’re proof that unconscious bias training really isn’t effective at actually eliminating it from the subject.
Nope you answered a question I didn’t ask. And when you call Hamas freedom fighters, or act like they are a rational political group you are sympathizing. If they were freedom fighters they would have picked a different target and used different tactics. Their leadership didn’t have an accident. They meticulously planned and executed a strategy to bring them closer to their goals. And it was successful. The rest of your post is garbage. There was at least two freak outs in last couple of months and I’ve run out of patience. Good luck in your life but I’m past caring. It does not matter to me at all what you think of me or my posting. I’ve never that I can recall ever called Hamas freedom fighters, show me the post. Please, for the class. National self-determination and liberal values aren’t always bedfellows. Hamas can both want freedom from being under the boot of Israel and themselves be quite restrictive in what rights they would give, or do give to their subjects. Did every former colony of the British Empire enjoy better civic rights for their population after independence? Some did, some didn’t, but it’s not really a justification for the British Empire continuing as it did to the present day. When or where did I say that or anything remotely close? I’m your analogy did the people under British rule call the freedom fighters oppressive and corrupt in massive percentages? When they were funded and controlled by either the US or Russia were they a proxy army or freedom fighters? If the latter than all the coups people claim about the US destabilizing areas, in South America for example, was actually the US supporting freedom fighters? I never claimed you did say such a thing, it was an illustrative example that national self-determination and a more generally accepted universal standard of human rights don’t always coexist Hamas can simultaneously be fighting for freedom from Israel, while their own regime denies basic freedoms to their populace, both can be true. Have you dug out the post where I called Hamas noble freedom fighters yet btw? You certainly implied in this very post that Hamas are freedom fighters. You said they can "be fighting for freedom". That's pretty much the definition of a freedom fighter. I find that to be problematic for one of two reasons. Either, 1) You've made "freedom fighter" such a loose term that it loses all its meaning. If someone fights to keep his slaves, is he a freedom fighter? He's fighting for his own freedom to hold slaves, thus a "freedom fighter". Freedom fighter is a positive term that I feel requires more than fighting for some vague version of "freedom". The "freedom" itself needs to be a highly qualified greater good. If someone is fighting for their freedom to impose their own rule on others, I can't call them freedom fighters. That's where Hamas fails. They may be fighting Israel, but their actions have always been worse. Their treatment of humanity has always been worse. Their belief in rights has always been worse. "Freedom" for them is awful for everyone else. So I can't even say that they're "fighting for freedom from Israel". I don't want to even imply that they're freedom fighters. What they want is not freedom. 2) You're purely proposing a hypothetical. You do say, "can simultaneously be". That says that you're not saying they are, just that they could theoretically be. The problem with this is that by purely proposing a hypothetical, you are linking the two things together. Tucker Carlson is known for this tactic. He's "just asking questions". He uses highly leading questions to imply certain things without ever directly saying those things. It's very weaselly. Of course, he's far from the first or only one to do it. Another example, in the 2000 Republican primaries, Bush's cronies would do "Polls" in southern states and ask questions like "How would you feel if you found out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child?" Those "pollsters" were just asking questions. However, the question itself was extremely leading and got a bunch of southern Republican voters to link McCain with an affair and black people, which likely hurt McCain's chances in a religious and racist south. Even if you're purely asking questions or making statements from a theoretical standpoint, you're subtly making links in people's minds. @Jimmy + Fleet thanks for responses just using this one to quote off It is essentially both a loaded term with positive connotations, but definitionally so vague as to basically always apply to such scenarios. Which, is why I studiously avoid using it, and only did in response to other posts. And really in irritation at accusations of Hamas sympathies. As the old adage goes ‘one man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist’ and all that. It is generally agreed that national self-determination is a legitimate thing to pursue, peoples should be able to pursue their own destiny. But that doesn’t always necessarily lead to greater freedom, or better conditions for the populace, although obviously it often can. This would strike me as one such case: 1) Do Hamas want a state for their people? - Yes 2) Is such a state under their control likely to be oppressive? - Yes If I’m frequently acknowledging 2, occasionally pointing out 1 doesn’t immediately invalidate the former utterances. Having to add endless caveats to posts to avoid accusations of Hamas sympathy also gets grating. My actual position on this is probably closest to Mohdoo, or at least how I interpret his posts, if I interpret the gist he may correct me. Hamas can’t win militarily, even with human shields and embedding themselves in the populace. Which, if not a legitimate tactic is basically necessity if they don’t want to be obliterated in a week. The Palestinians if they roundly disarm probably aren’t getting what they want because why would Israel give them it? They’ve shown less and less inclination over time and there’s a huge power imbalance that’s growing. Really the only hope for some kind of resolution that is palatable to both sides will come from external international pressure and those wheels are very, very slow to turn indeed on current/historical evidence. Hamas are dooming their people to continued suffering, whatever the cause it’s just not a winnable one. The IRA had sympathy for their cause in powerful stations (especially the US), the IRA didn’t have the British air striking civilian centres to root them out. The British don’t really, much as they’ll say otherwise, even care about Northern Ireland all that much, and even in the Troubles era there was never a huge visceral hatred between the peoples, who were culturally very similar. That kind of scenario, actually winnable. Ultimately it’s a perpetual conflict where all parties would benefit from a cessation. But they won’t because pride is one of our great flaws as a species. Hamas being in charge, and its methods take the only victory condition for even a two-state solution (nevermind what they actually desire) completely off the table Correct if I'm wrong, but the IRA was not the government in Ireland it was the British? And also the IRA was not ran by a foreign government? My other bone to pick is with your choice of likely in the 2nd point. They are the government and they are oppressive (and that is not me saying it, it is what the Gazans say). Most of your post I agree with, it is just that analogies don't really track. Like sure every resistance group gets branded terrorists. But there is a difference between planting a bomb and it killing a child vs walking into a home tying everyone up, raping the women and stabbing them all to death including the babies. There is a line you cross where the goal is no longer anything other than hate and terror. If their target on OCT 7th was a prison holding their people, any military outpost, a police station, any sort of infrastructure, even like a office building that housed the IDF in some way. I could see where many people are coming from, we would likely be more aligned. But considering what they did on top of how they treat their own women not mention their LGTB community, I feel to strongly about human rights to support them at all. If they "win" the Palestines will be worse off. It is the scenario I’m most familiar with so it’s my go-to, but there are as many differences as there are similarities. Indeed, I’m quite critical locally of my Irish fellows for often uncritically drawing a lineage between Irish Republicanism and Palestine, to the degree they make excuses for Hamas by (not necessarily consciously) drawing too many parallels. I think my very initial posts on Oct 7th alluded to a level of brutality and sadism that exceed mere pushes for self-determination and to a visceral, genocidal hatred of not just Israelis, but Jews in general. Cannot recall my exact wording but I’ll just reiterate again. It still doesn’t mean they’re not motivated by freedom from Israeli control, or are resisting that. What they would do with such a state of affairs isn’t going to be good, be it for their people, or Israelis. It’s a gap in my knowledge I’ll try to fill but I’d wager even if we magically removed Hamas from power and any influence, that broader Palestinian social and cultural views aren’t going to massively align with mine if we’re talking how women are perceived, never mind LGBT people. It doesn’t strike me as fertile ground for egalitarianism to sprout, at least initially. I don’t think Hamas is fully reflective of the populace, I do think they’re more extreme and wield power to withhold certain things, but neither do I think they’re the sole entity that’s subsuming some wellspring of Western values coming to the surface. If you are talking about the fighters themselves, I'm sure some of them are, some of them are in it for the status, money and power, some just hatred. I'm sure it is a mix. The top end, which is what I'm referring to when I say "hamas", I do not believe they are interesting in liberating but rather just destroying Israel and really everyone who is not exactly like them. I agree with you that much of their opinions would not match yours on human rights. Whereas outside of the wacky far right most of Israelis would. This is part of the reason why I do not understand why so many people treat Israel as the evil to the core empire. There is a lot of good in that nation. Edit: one of the biggest global challenges is going to be how we deal with extremism.
There is indeed, unfortunately not a sufficient number to direct policy in a better direction.
Although this is rather Hamas’ fault as well. Terrorism, as per its name can terrify people to act in ways politically they wouldn’t otherwise do. Be it 9/11 back in the day or the various Islamist attacks in Europe that have hardened many attitudes in certain ways. Which, if we’re purely talking numbers and frequency, purely logically and divorced from emotion, really aren’t all that common, or devastating. This is not to diminish them, just placing them in perspective. As an old lecturer said (to much outrage) the Troubles in Northern Ireland were small fry compared to even singular events in the Yugoslavian Civil War, correctly.
If you’re an Israeli well, Hamas are frequently attacking, even if the Iron Dome largely prevents them from being successful. And they’ve just killed 1700 people, some brutally and sadistically, and they live next door.
I think there’s an unreasonable expectation for Israel to just suck up such things, when the ‘coalition of the willing’ launched two foreign wars on the basis of 9/11, and there’s been a layer of anti-Muslim prejudice bubbling ever since, even spreading to Ireland recently which has generally been mercifully light in indulging the worst of our impulses.
My attitude to Israel is rather split between security and settlements. I don’t necessarily agree with everything they do for security, but there is an unarguable need for some kind of security effort. Settlements are colonial land grabs and for me de facto ethnic cleansing and until they cease I’ll be very critical in that specific domain.
Cheers for the engagement on this, I was a bit of a prick but this kind of back-and-forth, while we won’t agree on anything at least we’re actually communicating properly.
|
|
|
On February 03 2024 02:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2024 02:50 WombaT wrote:On February 03 2024 02:16 JimmiC wrote:On February 03 2024 01:02 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 13:22 RenSC2 wrote:On February 02 2024 09:49 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 09:33 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 08:39 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Literally all I’ve said is stop posting in an irritating manner, when you don’t you are a valuable contributor. I’ve seen you do better, you’re eminently capable of it, if I didn’t think you were I wouldn’t bother raising it.
If people were unfairly describing you as a Zionist stooge or something you wouldn’t like it would you? But you’ll continually tar people as Hamas sympathisers even if their previous posts have roundly condemned them.
I answered a specific question, only for you to respond with another, different question that I’m somehow be supposed to answer before it was proffered. That I’ve apparently backtracked on despite never having said anything about it to begin with.
It’s not an ideological issue either, I’ve had nothing but civil interactions with Cerebrate, who I think it’s fair to say is quite pro-Israel (while not being dismissive of the Palestinian side of the equation), and I value our exchanges.
I’m posting this in thread rather than via PM so if folks consider my interpretation as unfair they’re free to push back.
Otherwise I’m not fussed on engaging unless you stop doing the things that multiple posters have constructively outlined, you do you man. If nothing else you’re proof that unconscious bias training really isn’t effective at actually eliminating it from the subject.
Nope you answered a question I didn’t ask. And when you call Hamas freedom fighters, or act like they are a rational political group you are sympathizing. If they were freedom fighters they would have picked a different target and used different tactics. Their leadership didn’t have an accident. They meticulously planned and executed a strategy to bring them closer to their goals. And it was successful. The rest of your post is garbage. There was at least two freak outs in last couple of months and I’ve run out of patience. Good luck in your life but I’m past caring. It does not matter to me at all what you think of me or my posting. I’ve never that I can recall ever called Hamas freedom fighters, show me the post. Please, for the class. National self-determination and liberal values aren’t always bedfellows. Hamas can both want freedom from being under the boot of Israel and themselves be quite restrictive in what rights they would give, or do give to their subjects. Did every former colony of the British Empire enjoy better civic rights for their population after independence? Some did, some didn’t, but it’s not really a justification for the British Empire continuing as it did to the present day. When or where did I say that or anything remotely close? I’m your analogy did the people under British rule call the freedom fighters oppressive and corrupt in massive percentages? When they were funded and controlled by either the US or Russia were they a proxy army or freedom fighters? If the latter than all the coups people claim about the US destabilizing areas, in South America for example, was actually the US supporting freedom fighters? I never claimed you did say such a thing, it was an illustrative example that national self-determination and a more generally accepted universal standard of human rights don’t always coexist Hamas can simultaneously be fighting for freedom from Israel, while their own regime denies basic freedoms to their populace, both can be true. Have you dug out the post where I called Hamas noble freedom fighters yet btw? You certainly implied in this very post that Hamas are freedom fighters. You said they can "be fighting for freedom". That's pretty much the definition of a freedom fighter. I find that to be problematic for one of two reasons. Either, 1) You've made "freedom fighter" such a loose term that it loses all its meaning. If someone fights to keep his slaves, is he a freedom fighter? He's fighting for his own freedom to hold slaves, thus a "freedom fighter". Freedom fighter is a positive term that I feel requires more than fighting for some vague version of "freedom". The "freedom" itself needs to be a highly qualified greater good. If someone is fighting for their freedom to impose their own rule on others, I can't call them freedom fighters. That's where Hamas fails. They may be fighting Israel, but their actions have always been worse. Their treatment of humanity has always been worse. Their belief in rights has always been worse. "Freedom" for them is awful for everyone else. So I can't even say that they're "fighting for freedom from Israel". I don't want to even imply that they're freedom fighters. What they want is not freedom. 2) You're purely proposing a hypothetical. You do say, "can simultaneously be". That says that you're not saying they are, just that they could theoretically be. The problem with this is that by purely proposing a hypothetical, you are linking the two things together. Tucker Carlson is known for this tactic. He's "just asking questions". He uses highly leading questions to imply certain things without ever directly saying those things. It's very weaselly. Of course, he's far from the first or only one to do it. Another example, in the 2000 Republican primaries, Bush's cronies would do "Polls" in southern states and ask questions like "How would you feel if you found out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child?" Those "pollsters" were just asking questions. However, the question itself was extremely leading and got a bunch of southern Republican voters to link McCain with an affair and black people, which likely hurt McCain's chances in a religious and racist south. Even if you're purely asking questions or making statements from a theoretical standpoint, you're subtly making links in people's minds. @Jimmy + Fleet thanks for responses just using this one to quote off It is essentially both a loaded term with positive connotations, but definitionally so vague as to basically always apply to such scenarios. Which, is why I studiously avoid using it, and only did in response to other posts. And really in irritation at accusations of Hamas sympathies. As the old adage goes ‘one man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist’ and all that. It is generally agreed that national self-determination is a legitimate thing to pursue, peoples should be able to pursue their own destiny. But that doesn’t always necessarily lead to greater freedom, or better conditions for the populace, although obviously it often can. This would strike me as one such case: 1) Do Hamas want a state for their people? - Yes 2) Is such a state under their control likely to be oppressive? - Yes If I’m frequently acknowledging 2, occasionally pointing out 1 doesn’t immediately invalidate the former utterances. Having to add endless caveats to posts to avoid accusations of Hamas sympathy also gets grating. My actual position on this is probably closest to Mohdoo, or at least how I interpret his posts, if I interpret the gist he may correct me. Hamas can’t win militarily, even with human shields and embedding themselves in the populace. Which, if not a legitimate tactic is basically necessity if they don’t want to be obliterated in a week. The Palestinians if they roundly disarm probably aren’t getting what they want because why would Israel give them it? They’ve shown less and less inclination over time and there’s a huge power imbalance that’s growing. Really the only hope for some kind of resolution that is palatable to both sides will come from external international pressure and those wheels are very, very slow to turn indeed on current/historical evidence. Hamas are dooming their people to continued suffering, whatever the cause it’s just not a winnable one. The IRA had sympathy for their cause in powerful stations (especially the US), the IRA didn’t have the British air striking civilian centres to root them out. The British don’t really, much as they’ll say otherwise, even care about Northern Ireland all that much, and even in the Troubles era there was never a huge visceral hatred between the peoples, who were culturally very similar. That kind of scenario, actually winnable. Ultimately it’s a perpetual conflict where all parties would benefit from a cessation. But they won’t because pride is one of our great flaws as a species. Hamas being in charge, and its methods take the only victory condition for even a two-state solution (nevermind what they actually desire) completely off the table Correct if I'm wrong, but the IRA was not the government in Ireland it was the British? And also the IRA was not ran by a foreign government? My other bone to pick is with your choice of likely in the 2nd point. They are the government and they are oppressive (and that is not me saying it, it is what the Gazans say). Most of your post I agree with, it is just that analogies don't really track. Like sure every resistance group gets branded terrorists. But there is a difference between planting a bomb and it killing a child vs walking into a home tying everyone up, raping the women and stabbing them all to death including the babies. There is a line you cross where the goal is no longer anything other than hate and terror. If their target on OCT 7th was a prison holding their people, any military outpost, a police station, any sort of infrastructure, even like a office building that housed the IDF in some way. I could see where many people are coming from, we would likely be more aligned. But considering what they did on top of how they treat their own women not mention their LGTB community, I feel to strongly about human rights to support them at all. If they "win" the Palestines will be worse off. It is the scenario I’m most familiar with so it’s my go-to, but there are as many differences as there are similarities. Indeed, I’m quite critical locally of my Irish fellows for often uncritically drawing a lineage between Irish Republicanism and Palestine, to the degree they make excuses for Hamas by (not necessarily consciously) drawing too many parallels. I think my very initial posts on Oct 7th alluded to a level of brutality and sadism that exceed mere pushes for self-determination and to a visceral, genocidal hatred of not just Israelis, but Jews in general. Cannot recall my exact wording but I’ll just reiterate again. It still doesn’t mean they’re not motivated by freedom from Israeli control, or are resisting that. What they would do with such a state of affairs isn’t going to be good, be it for their people, or Israelis. It’s a gap in my knowledge I’ll try to fill but I’d wager even if we magically removed Hamas from power and any influence, that broader Palestinian social and cultural views aren’t going to massively align with mine if we’re talking how women are perceived, never mind LGBT people. It doesn’t strike me as fertile ground for egalitarianism to sprout, at least initially. I don’t think Hamas is fully reflective of the populace, I do think they’re more extreme and wield power to withhold certain things, but neither do I think they’re the sole entity that’s subsuming some wellspring of Western values coming to the surface. I agree with you that much of their opinions would not match yours on human rights. Whereas outside of the wacky far right most of Israelis would. This is part of the reason why I do not understand why so many people treat Israel as the evil to the core empire. There is a lot of good in that nation.
For me it's the opposite that is hard to understand. What is so special about Israel that we are willing to raise so many shields over their human right violations? This isn't a natural thing to do, even the US doesn't get that treatment a lot of the time. When China makes a concentration camp for its Uyghur population, we don't look for the opinions of the average Chinese person on stuff to compare them with the opinions of the average Uyghur, we don't look at whether there is a lot of good in China, we just declare that violating the human rights of the Uyghur is wrong. If someone kills someone else, what we're considering is the circumstances of that killing, and not which of the murderer or the victim is the liberal and which is the conservative. But somehow when the government of Israel does something, we're asked to consider what an average Israeli thinks of gay people. No, I don't care. The important thing is what the government of Israel did.
Unfortunately, the other thing is that the Israeli wacky far right isn't a wacky far right. It currently runs the country, after having won an election (not with the majority but you know how that goes). It can be safely said to represent the views of 40% of Israelis, something in that ballpark. As for the opposition, the main parties in the opposition aren't critical of the occupation of Palestine, and some of the clearly genocidal statements that were given in response to October 7th came from politicians labeled as leftwing in the current Knesset.
So no, I wouldn't say that the average Israeli agrees with me on human rights, I believe that muslims are also human and deserving of those and I don't reckon the average Israeli believes that. This situation didn't happen because the Israeli people are especially evil, by the way, there's no such thing as an evil group of humans, or as an evil human for that matter. They grew up in a culture and in an environment that viewed Palestinians as subhuman, the enemy, and so it was much easier for them to develop extremist views on this topic (much like Palestinians can easily develop extremist views when it comes to Israelis (or Jews) due to their own circumstances).
There are obviously Israelis who have similar opinions to me when it comes to human rights, and they are to be celebrated. It took me a while to see what was wrong with the society I live in, and there was much less pressure on me than there is on them. They're heroes. Here are a few:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/pro-palestinian-israelis-face-threats-but-vow-to-keep-fighting-for-peace
Youtube
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/23/israel-man-jailed-refuse-serve-idf-military-tal-mitnick-interview
https://www.vice.com/en/article/gyazzj/meet-the-taylor-swift-stan-who-went-to-jail
Youtube
|
Northern Ireland23339 Posts
On February 03 2024 04:03 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2024 02:58 JimmiC wrote:On February 03 2024 02:50 WombaT wrote:On February 03 2024 02:16 JimmiC wrote:On February 03 2024 01:02 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 13:22 RenSC2 wrote:On February 02 2024 09:49 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 09:33 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:15 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Nope you answered a question I didn’t ask. And when you call Hamas freedom fighters, or act like they are a rational political group you are sympathizing.
If they were freedom fighters they would have picked a different target and used different tactics. Their leadership didn’t have an accident. They meticulously planned and executed a strategy to bring them closer to their goals. And it was successful.
The rest of your post is garbage. There was at least two freak outs in last couple of months and I’ve run out of patience. Good luck in your life but I’m past caring. It does not matter to me at all what you think of me or my posting. I’ve never that I can recall ever called Hamas freedom fighters, show me the post. Please, for the class. National self-determination and liberal values aren’t always bedfellows. Hamas can both want freedom from being under the boot of Israel and themselves be quite restrictive in what rights they would give, or do give to their subjects. Did every former colony of the British Empire enjoy better civic rights for their population after independence? Some did, some didn’t, but it’s not really a justification for the British Empire continuing as it did to the present day. When or where did I say that or anything remotely close? I’m your analogy did the people under British rule call the freedom fighters oppressive and corrupt in massive percentages? When they were funded and controlled by either the US or Russia were they a proxy army or freedom fighters? If the latter than all the coups people claim about the US destabilizing areas, in South America for example, was actually the US supporting freedom fighters? I never claimed you did say such a thing, it was an illustrative example that national self-determination and a more generally accepted universal standard of human rights don’t always coexist Hamas can simultaneously be fighting for freedom from Israel, while their own regime denies basic freedoms to their populace, both can be true. Have you dug out the post where I called Hamas noble freedom fighters yet btw? You certainly implied in this very post that Hamas are freedom fighters. You said they can "be fighting for freedom". That's pretty much the definition of a freedom fighter. I find that to be problematic for one of two reasons. Either, 1) You've made "freedom fighter" such a loose term that it loses all its meaning. If someone fights to keep his slaves, is he a freedom fighter? He's fighting for his own freedom to hold slaves, thus a "freedom fighter". Freedom fighter is a positive term that I feel requires more than fighting for some vague version of "freedom". The "freedom" itself needs to be a highly qualified greater good. If someone is fighting for their freedom to impose their own rule on others, I can't call them freedom fighters. That's where Hamas fails. They may be fighting Israel, but their actions have always been worse. Their treatment of humanity has always been worse. Their belief in rights has always been worse. "Freedom" for them is awful for everyone else. So I can't even say that they're "fighting for freedom from Israel". I don't want to even imply that they're freedom fighters. What they want is not freedom. 2) You're purely proposing a hypothetical. You do say, "can simultaneously be". That says that you're not saying they are, just that they could theoretically be. The problem with this is that by purely proposing a hypothetical, you are linking the two things together. Tucker Carlson is known for this tactic. He's "just asking questions". He uses highly leading questions to imply certain things without ever directly saying those things. It's very weaselly. Of course, he's far from the first or only one to do it. Another example, in the 2000 Republican primaries, Bush's cronies would do "Polls" in southern states and ask questions like "How would you feel if you found out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child?" Those "pollsters" were just asking questions. However, the question itself was extremely leading and got a bunch of southern Republican voters to link McCain with an affair and black people, which likely hurt McCain's chances in a religious and racist south. Even if you're purely asking questions or making statements from a theoretical standpoint, you're subtly making links in people's minds. @Jimmy + Fleet thanks for responses just using this one to quote off It is essentially both a loaded term with positive connotations, but definitionally so vague as to basically always apply to such scenarios. Which, is why I studiously avoid using it, and only did in response to other posts. And really in irritation at accusations of Hamas sympathies. As the old adage goes ‘one man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist’ and all that. It is generally agreed that national self-determination is a legitimate thing to pursue, peoples should be able to pursue their own destiny. But that doesn’t always necessarily lead to greater freedom, or better conditions for the populace, although obviously it often can. This would strike me as one such case: 1) Do Hamas want a state for their people? - Yes 2) Is such a state under their control likely to be oppressive? - Yes If I’m frequently acknowledging 2, occasionally pointing out 1 doesn’t immediately invalidate the former utterances. Having to add endless caveats to posts to avoid accusations of Hamas sympathy also gets grating. My actual position on this is probably closest to Mohdoo, or at least how I interpret his posts, if I interpret the gist he may correct me. Hamas can’t win militarily, even with human shields and embedding themselves in the populace. Which, if not a legitimate tactic is basically necessity if they don’t want to be obliterated in a week. The Palestinians if they roundly disarm probably aren’t getting what they want because why would Israel give them it? They’ve shown less and less inclination over time and there’s a huge power imbalance that’s growing. Really the only hope for some kind of resolution that is palatable to both sides will come from external international pressure and those wheels are very, very slow to turn indeed on current/historical evidence. Hamas are dooming their people to continued suffering, whatever the cause it’s just not a winnable one. The IRA had sympathy for their cause in powerful stations (especially the US), the IRA didn’t have the British air striking civilian centres to root them out. The British don’t really, much as they’ll say otherwise, even care about Northern Ireland all that much, and even in the Troubles era there was never a huge visceral hatred between the peoples, who were culturally very similar. That kind of scenario, actually winnable. Ultimately it’s a perpetual conflict where all parties would benefit from a cessation. But they won’t because pride is one of our great flaws as a species. Hamas being in charge, and its methods take the only victory condition for even a two-state solution (nevermind what they actually desire) completely off the table Correct if I'm wrong, but the IRA was not the government in Ireland it was the British? And also the IRA was not ran by a foreign government? My other bone to pick is with your choice of likely in the 2nd point. They are the government and they are oppressive (and that is not me saying it, it is what the Gazans say). Most of your post I agree with, it is just that analogies don't really track. Like sure every resistance group gets branded terrorists. But there is a difference between planting a bomb and it killing a child vs walking into a home tying everyone up, raping the women and stabbing them all to death including the babies. There is a line you cross where the goal is no longer anything other than hate and terror. If their target on OCT 7th was a prison holding their people, any military outpost, a police station, any sort of infrastructure, even like a office building that housed the IDF in some way. I could see where many people are coming from, we would likely be more aligned. But considering what they did on top of how they treat their own women not mention their LGTB community, I feel to strongly about human rights to support them at all. If they "win" the Palestines will be worse off. It is the scenario I’m most familiar with so it’s my go-to, but there are as many differences as there are similarities. Indeed, I’m quite critical locally of my Irish fellows for often uncritically drawing a lineage between Irish Republicanism and Palestine, to the degree they make excuses for Hamas by (not necessarily consciously) drawing too many parallels. I think my very initial posts on Oct 7th alluded to a level of brutality and sadism that exceed mere pushes for self-determination and to a visceral, genocidal hatred of not just Israelis, but Jews in general. Cannot recall my exact wording but I’ll just reiterate again. It still doesn’t mean they’re not motivated by freedom from Israeli control, or are resisting that. What they would do with such a state of affairs isn’t going to be good, be it for their people, or Israelis. It’s a gap in my knowledge I’ll try to fill but I’d wager even if we magically removed Hamas from power and any influence, that broader Palestinian social and cultural views aren’t going to massively align with mine if we’re talking how women are perceived, never mind LGBT people. It doesn’t strike me as fertile ground for egalitarianism to sprout, at least initially. I don’t think Hamas is fully reflective of the populace, I do think they’re more extreme and wield power to withhold certain things, but neither do I think they’re the sole entity that’s subsuming some wellspring of Western values coming to the surface. I agree with you that much of their opinions would not match yours on human rights. Whereas outside of the wacky far right most of Israelis would. This is part of the reason why I do not understand why so many people treat Israel as the evil to the core empire. There is a lot of good in that nation. For me it's the opposite that is hard to understand. What is so special about Israel that we are willing to raise so many shields over their human right violations? This isn't a natural thing to do, even the US doesn't get that treatment a lot of the time. When China makes a concentration camp for its Uyghur population, we don't look for the opinions of the average Chinese person on stuff to compare them with the opinions of the average Uyghur, we don't look at whether there is a lot of good in China, we just declare that violating the human rights of the Uyghur is wrong. If someone kills someone else, what we're considering is the circumstances of that killing, and not which of the murderer or the victim is the liberal and which is the conservative. But somehow when the government of Israel does something, we're asked to consider what an average Israeli thinks of gay people. No, I don't care. The important thing is what the government of Israel did. Unfortunately, the other thing is that the Israeli wacky far right isn't a wacky far right. It currently runs the country, after having won an election (not with the majority but you know how that goes). It can be safely said to represent the views of 40% of Israelis, something in that ballpark. As for the opposition, the main parties in the opposition aren't critical of the occupation of Palestine, and some of the clearly genocidal statements that were given in response to October 7th came from politicians labeled as leftwing in the current Knesset. So no, I wouldn't say that the average Israeli agrees with me on human rights, I believe that muslims are also human and deserving of those and I don't reckon the average Israeli believes that. This situation didn't happen because the Israeli people are especially evil, by the way, there's no such thing as an evil group of humans, or as an evil human for that matter. They grew up in a culture and in an environment that viewed Palestinians as subhuman, the enemy, and so it was much easier for them to develop extremist views on this topic (much like Palestinians can easily develop extremist views when it comes to Israelis (or Jews) due to their own circumstances). There are obviously Israelis who have similar opinions to me when it comes to human rights, and they are to be celebrated. It took me a while to see what was wrong with the society I live in, and there was much less pressure on me than there is on them. They're heroes. Here are a few: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/pro-palestinian-israelis-face-threats-but-vow-to-keep-fighting-for-peaceYoutubehttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/23/israel-man-jailed-refuse-serve-idf-military-tal-mitnick-interviewhttps://www.vice.com/en/article/gyazzj/meet-the-taylor-swift-stan-who-went-to-jailYoutube
Can’t disagree with that summation at all sir
|
On February 03 2024 04:03 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2024 02:58 JimmiC wrote:On February 03 2024 02:50 WombaT wrote:On February 03 2024 02:16 JimmiC wrote:On February 03 2024 01:02 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 13:22 RenSC2 wrote:On February 02 2024 09:49 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 09:33 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:15 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Nope you answered a question I didn’t ask. And when you call Hamas freedom fighters, or act like they are a rational political group you are sympathizing.
If they were freedom fighters they would have picked a different target and used different tactics. Their leadership didn’t have an accident. They meticulously planned and executed a strategy to bring them closer to their goals. And it was successful.
The rest of your post is garbage. There was at least two freak outs in last couple of months and I’ve run out of patience. Good luck in your life but I’m past caring. It does not matter to me at all what you think of me or my posting. I’ve never that I can recall ever called Hamas freedom fighters, show me the post. Please, for the class. National self-determination and liberal values aren’t always bedfellows. Hamas can both want freedom from being under the boot of Israel and themselves be quite restrictive in what rights they would give, or do give to their subjects. Did every former colony of the British Empire enjoy better civic rights for their population after independence? Some did, some didn’t, but it’s not really a justification for the British Empire continuing as it did to the present day. When or where did I say that or anything remotely close? I’m your analogy did the people under British rule call the freedom fighters oppressive and corrupt in massive percentages? When they were funded and controlled by either the US or Russia were they a proxy army or freedom fighters? If the latter than all the coups people claim about the US destabilizing areas, in South America for example, was actually the US supporting freedom fighters? I never claimed you did say such a thing, it was an illustrative example that national self-determination and a more generally accepted universal standard of human rights don’t always coexist Hamas can simultaneously be fighting for freedom from Israel, while their own regime denies basic freedoms to their populace, both can be true. Have you dug out the post where I called Hamas noble freedom fighters yet btw? You certainly implied in this very post that Hamas are freedom fighters. You said they can "be fighting for freedom". That's pretty much the definition of a freedom fighter. I find that to be problematic for one of two reasons. Either, 1) You've made "freedom fighter" such a loose term that it loses all its meaning. If someone fights to keep his slaves, is he a freedom fighter? He's fighting for his own freedom to hold slaves, thus a "freedom fighter". Freedom fighter is a positive term that I feel requires more than fighting for some vague version of "freedom". The "freedom" itself needs to be a highly qualified greater good. If someone is fighting for their freedom to impose their own rule on others, I can't call them freedom fighters. That's where Hamas fails. They may be fighting Israel, but their actions have always been worse. Their treatment of humanity has always been worse. Their belief in rights has always been worse. "Freedom" for them is awful for everyone else. So I can't even say that they're "fighting for freedom from Israel". I don't want to even imply that they're freedom fighters. What they want is not freedom. 2) You're purely proposing a hypothetical. You do say, "can simultaneously be". That says that you're not saying they are, just that they could theoretically be. The problem with this is that by purely proposing a hypothetical, you are linking the two things together. Tucker Carlson is known for this tactic. He's "just asking questions". He uses highly leading questions to imply certain things without ever directly saying those things. It's very weaselly. Of course, he's far from the first or only one to do it. Another example, in the 2000 Republican primaries, Bush's cronies would do "Polls" in southern states and ask questions like "How would you feel if you found out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child?" Those "pollsters" were just asking questions. However, the question itself was extremely leading and got a bunch of southern Republican voters to link McCain with an affair and black people, which likely hurt McCain's chances in a religious and racist south. Even if you're purely asking questions or making statements from a theoretical standpoint, you're subtly making links in people's minds. @Jimmy + Fleet thanks for responses just using this one to quote off It is essentially both a loaded term with positive connotations, but definitionally so vague as to basically always apply to such scenarios. Which, is why I studiously avoid using it, and only did in response to other posts. And really in irritation at accusations of Hamas sympathies. As the old adage goes ‘one man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist’ and all that. It is generally agreed that national self-determination is a legitimate thing to pursue, peoples should be able to pursue their own destiny. But that doesn’t always necessarily lead to greater freedom, or better conditions for the populace, although obviously it often can. This would strike me as one such case: 1) Do Hamas want a state for their people? - Yes 2) Is such a state under their control likely to be oppressive? - Yes If I’m frequently acknowledging 2, occasionally pointing out 1 doesn’t immediately invalidate the former utterances. Having to add endless caveats to posts to avoid accusations of Hamas sympathy also gets grating. My actual position on this is probably closest to Mohdoo, or at least how I interpret his posts, if I interpret the gist he may correct me. Hamas can’t win militarily, even with human shields and embedding themselves in the populace. Which, if not a legitimate tactic is basically necessity if they don’t want to be obliterated in a week. The Palestinians if they roundly disarm probably aren’t getting what they want because why would Israel give them it? They’ve shown less and less inclination over time and there’s a huge power imbalance that’s growing. Really the only hope for some kind of resolution that is palatable to both sides will come from external international pressure and those wheels are very, very slow to turn indeed on current/historical evidence. Hamas are dooming their people to continued suffering, whatever the cause it’s just not a winnable one. The IRA had sympathy for their cause in powerful stations (especially the US), the IRA didn’t have the British air striking civilian centres to root them out. The British don’t really, much as they’ll say otherwise, even care about Northern Ireland all that much, and even in the Troubles era there was never a huge visceral hatred between the peoples, who were culturally very similar. That kind of scenario, actually winnable. Ultimately it’s a perpetual conflict where all parties would benefit from a cessation. But they won’t because pride is one of our great flaws as a species. Hamas being in charge, and its methods take the only victory condition for even a two-state solution (nevermind what they actually desire) completely off the table Correct if I'm wrong, but the IRA was not the government in Ireland it was the British? And also the IRA was not ran by a foreign government? My other bone to pick is with your choice of likely in the 2nd point. They are the government and they are oppressive (and that is not me saying it, it is what the Gazans say). Most of your post I agree with, it is just that analogies don't really track. Like sure every resistance group gets branded terrorists. But there is a difference between planting a bomb and it killing a child vs walking into a home tying everyone up, raping the women and stabbing them all to death including the babies. There is a line you cross where the goal is no longer anything other than hate and terror. If their target on OCT 7th was a prison holding their people, any military outpost, a police station, any sort of infrastructure, even like a office building that housed the IDF in some way. I could see where many people are coming from, we would likely be more aligned. But considering what they did on top of how they treat their own women not mention their LGTB community, I feel to strongly about human rights to support them at all. If they "win" the Palestines will be worse off. It is the scenario I’m most familiar with so it’s my go-to, but there are as many differences as there are similarities. Indeed, I’m quite critical locally of my Irish fellows for often uncritically drawing a lineage between Irish Republicanism and Palestine, to the degree they make excuses for Hamas by (not necessarily consciously) drawing too many parallels. I think my very initial posts on Oct 7th alluded to a level of brutality and sadism that exceed mere pushes for self-determination and to a visceral, genocidal hatred of not just Israelis, but Jews in general. Cannot recall my exact wording but I’ll just reiterate again. It still doesn’t mean they’re not motivated by freedom from Israeli control, or are resisting that. What they would do with such a state of affairs isn’t going to be good, be it for their people, or Israelis. It’s a gap in my knowledge I’ll try to fill but I’d wager even if we magically removed Hamas from power and any influence, that broader Palestinian social and cultural views aren’t going to massively align with mine if we’re talking how women are perceived, never mind LGBT people. It doesn’t strike me as fertile ground for egalitarianism to sprout, at least initially. I don’t think Hamas is fully reflective of the populace, I do think they’re more extreme and wield power to withhold certain things, but neither do I think they’re the sole entity that’s subsuming some wellspring of Western values coming to the surface. I agree with you that much of their opinions would not match yours on human rights. Whereas outside of the wacky far right most of Israelis would. This is part of the reason why I do not understand why so many people treat Israel as the evil to the core empire. There is a lot of good in that nation. For me it's the opposite that is hard to understand. What is so special about Israel that we are willing to raise so many shields over their human right violations? This isn't a natural thing to do, even the US doesn't get that treatment a lot of the time. When China makes a concentration camp for its Uyghur population, we don't look for the opinions of the average Chinese person on stuff to compare them with the opinions of the average Uyghur, we don't look at whether there is a lot of good in China, we just declare that violating the human rights of the Uyghur is wrong. If someone kills someone else, what we're considering is the circumstances of that killing, and not which of the murderer or the victim is the liberal and which is the conservative. But somehow when the government of Israel does something, we're asked to consider what an average Israeli thinks of gay people. No, I don't care. The important thing is what the government of Israel did. Unfortunately, the other thing is that the Israeli wacky far right isn't a wacky far right. It currently runs the country, after having won an election (not with the majority but you know how that goes). It can be safely said to represent the views of 40% of Israelis, something in that ballpark. As for the opposition, the main parties in the opposition aren't critical of the occupation of Palestine, and some of the clearly genocidal statements that were given in response to October 7th came from politicians labeled as leftwing in the current Knesset. So no, I wouldn't say that the average Israeli agrees with me on human rights, I believe that muslims are also human and deserving of those and I don't reckon the average Israeli believes that. This situation didn't happen because the Israeli people are especially evil, by the way, there's no such thing as an evil group of humans, or as an evil human for that matter. They grew up in a culture and in an environment that viewed Palestinians as subhuman, the enemy, and so it was much easier for them to develop extremist views on this topic (much like Palestinians can easily develop extremist views when it comes to Israelis (or Jews) due to their own circumstances). There are obviously Israelis who have similar opinions to me when it comes to human rights, and they are to be celebrated. It took me a while to see what was wrong with the society I live in, and there was much less pressure on me than there is on them. They're heroes. Here are a few: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/pro-palestinian-israelis-face-threats-but-vow-to-keep-fighting-for-peaceYoutubehttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/23/israel-man-jailed-refuse-serve-idf-military-tal-mitnick-interviewhttps://www.vice.com/en/article/gyazzj/meet-the-taylor-swift-stan-who-went-to-jailYoutube What is special about Israel is that they can shout "anti-Semite" whenever someone criticises the country and the world is run by a generation that grew up with the horrors of the Holocaust very front and centre.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland23339 Posts
On February 03 2024 04:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2024 04:03 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2024 02:58 JimmiC wrote:On February 03 2024 02:50 WombaT wrote:On February 03 2024 02:16 JimmiC wrote:On February 03 2024 01:02 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 13:22 RenSC2 wrote:On February 02 2024 09:49 WombaT wrote:On February 02 2024 09:42 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 09:33 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
I’ve never that I can recall ever called Hamas freedom fighters, show me the post. Please, for the class.
National self-determination and liberal values aren’t always bedfellows.
Hamas can both want freedom from being under the boot of Israel and themselves be quite restrictive in what rights they would give, or do give to their subjects.
Did every former colony of the British Empire enjoy better civic rights for their population after independence? Some did, some didn’t, but it’s not really a justification for the British Empire continuing as it did to the present day. When or where did I say that or anything remotely close? I’m your analogy did the people under British rule call the freedom fighters oppressive and corrupt in massive percentages? When they were funded and controlled by either the US or Russia were they a proxy army or freedom fighters? If the latter than all the coups people claim about the US destabilizing areas, in South America for example, was actually the US supporting freedom fighters? I never claimed you did say such a thing, it was an illustrative example that national self-determination and a more generally accepted universal standard of human rights don’t always coexist Hamas can simultaneously be fighting for freedom from Israel, while their own regime denies basic freedoms to their populace, both can be true. Have you dug out the post where I called Hamas noble freedom fighters yet btw? You certainly implied in this very post that Hamas are freedom fighters. You said they can "be fighting for freedom". That's pretty much the definition of a freedom fighter. I find that to be problematic for one of two reasons. Either, 1) You've made "freedom fighter" such a loose term that it loses all its meaning. If someone fights to keep his slaves, is he a freedom fighter? He's fighting for his own freedom to hold slaves, thus a "freedom fighter". Freedom fighter is a positive term that I feel requires more than fighting for some vague version of "freedom". The "freedom" itself needs to be a highly qualified greater good. If someone is fighting for their freedom to impose their own rule on others, I can't call them freedom fighters. That's where Hamas fails. They may be fighting Israel, but their actions have always been worse. Their treatment of humanity has always been worse. Their belief in rights has always been worse. "Freedom" for them is awful for everyone else. So I can't even say that they're "fighting for freedom from Israel". I don't want to even imply that they're freedom fighters. What they want is not freedom. 2) You're purely proposing a hypothetical. You do say, "can simultaneously be". That says that you're not saying they are, just that they could theoretically be. The problem with this is that by purely proposing a hypothetical, you are linking the two things together. Tucker Carlson is known for this tactic. He's "just asking questions". He uses highly leading questions to imply certain things without ever directly saying those things. It's very weaselly. Of course, he's far from the first or only one to do it. Another example, in the 2000 Republican primaries, Bush's cronies would do "Polls" in southern states and ask questions like "How would you feel if you found out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child?" Those "pollsters" were just asking questions. However, the question itself was extremely leading and got a bunch of southern Republican voters to link McCain with an affair and black people, which likely hurt McCain's chances in a religious and racist south. Even if you're purely asking questions or making statements from a theoretical standpoint, you're subtly making links in people's minds. @Jimmy + Fleet thanks for responses just using this one to quote off It is essentially both a loaded term with positive connotations, but definitionally so vague as to basically always apply to such scenarios. Which, is why I studiously avoid using it, and only did in response to other posts. And really in irritation at accusations of Hamas sympathies. As the old adage goes ‘one man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist’ and all that. It is generally agreed that national self-determination is a legitimate thing to pursue, peoples should be able to pursue their own destiny. But that doesn’t always necessarily lead to greater freedom, or better conditions for the populace, although obviously it often can. This would strike me as one such case: 1) Do Hamas want a state for their people? - Yes 2) Is such a state under their control likely to be oppressive? - Yes If I’m frequently acknowledging 2, occasionally pointing out 1 doesn’t immediately invalidate the former utterances. Having to add endless caveats to posts to avoid accusations of Hamas sympathy also gets grating. My actual position on this is probably closest to Mohdoo, or at least how I interpret his posts, if I interpret the gist he may correct me. Hamas can’t win militarily, even with human shields and embedding themselves in the populace. Which, if not a legitimate tactic is basically necessity if they don’t want to be obliterated in a week. The Palestinians if they roundly disarm probably aren’t getting what they want because why would Israel give them it? They’ve shown less and less inclination over time and there’s a huge power imbalance that’s growing. Really the only hope for some kind of resolution that is palatable to both sides will come from external international pressure and those wheels are very, very slow to turn indeed on current/historical evidence. Hamas are dooming their people to continued suffering, whatever the cause it’s just not a winnable one. The IRA had sympathy for their cause in powerful stations (especially the US), the IRA didn’t have the British air striking civilian centres to root them out. The British don’t really, much as they’ll say otherwise, even care about Northern Ireland all that much, and even in the Troubles era there was never a huge visceral hatred between the peoples, who were culturally very similar. That kind of scenario, actually winnable. Ultimately it’s a perpetual conflict where all parties would benefit from a cessation. But they won’t because pride is one of our great flaws as a species. Hamas being in charge, and its methods take the only victory condition for even a two-state solution (nevermind what they actually desire) completely off the table Correct if I'm wrong, but the IRA was not the government in Ireland it was the British? And also the IRA was not ran by a foreign government? My other bone to pick is with your choice of likely in the 2nd point. They are the government and they are oppressive (and that is not me saying it, it is what the Gazans say). Most of your post I agree with, it is just that analogies don't really track. Like sure every resistance group gets branded terrorists. But there is a difference between planting a bomb and it killing a child vs walking into a home tying everyone up, raping the women and stabbing them all to death including the babies. There is a line you cross where the goal is no longer anything other than hate and terror. If their target on OCT 7th was a prison holding their people, any military outpost, a police station, any sort of infrastructure, even like a office building that housed the IDF in some way. I could see where many people are coming from, we would likely be more aligned. But considering what they did on top of how they treat their own women not mention their LGTB community, I feel to strongly about human rights to support them at all. If they "win" the Palestines will be worse off. It is the scenario I’m most familiar with so it’s my go-to, but there are as many differences as there are similarities. Indeed, I’m quite critical locally of my Irish fellows for often uncritically drawing a lineage between Irish Republicanism and Palestine, to the degree they make excuses for Hamas by (not necessarily consciously) drawing too many parallels. I think my very initial posts on Oct 7th alluded to a level of brutality and sadism that exceed mere pushes for self-determination and to a visceral, genocidal hatred of not just Israelis, but Jews in general. Cannot recall my exact wording but I’ll just reiterate again. It still doesn’t mean they’re not motivated by freedom from Israeli control, or are resisting that. What they would do with such a state of affairs isn’t going to be good, be it for their people, or Israelis. It’s a gap in my knowledge I’ll try to fill but I’d wager even if we magically removed Hamas from power and any influence, that broader Palestinian social and cultural views aren’t going to massively align with mine if we’re talking how women are perceived, never mind LGBT people. It doesn’t strike me as fertile ground for egalitarianism to sprout, at least initially. I don’t think Hamas is fully reflective of the populace, I do think they’re more extreme and wield power to withhold certain things, but neither do I think they’re the sole entity that’s subsuming some wellspring of Western values coming to the surface. I agree with you that much of their opinions would not match yours on human rights. Whereas outside of the wacky far right most of Israelis would. This is part of the reason why I do not understand why so many people treat Israel as the evil to the core empire. There is a lot of good in that nation. For me it's the opposite that is hard to understand. What is so special about Israel that we are willing to raise so many shields over their human right violations? This isn't a natural thing to do, even the US doesn't get that treatment a lot of the time. When China makes a concentration camp for its Uyghur population, we don't look for the opinions of the average Chinese person on stuff to compare them with the opinions of the average Uyghur, we don't look at whether there is a lot of good in China, we just declare that violating the human rights of the Uyghur is wrong. If someone kills someone else, what we're considering is the circumstances of that killing, and not which of the murderer or the victim is the liberal and which is the conservative. But somehow when the government of Israel does something, we're asked to consider what an average Israeli thinks of gay people. No, I don't care. The important thing is what the government of Israel did. Unfortunately, the other thing is that the Israeli wacky far right isn't a wacky far right. It currently runs the country, after having won an election (not with the majority but you know how that goes). It can be safely said to represent the views of 40% of Israelis, something in that ballpark. As for the opposition, the main parties in the opposition aren't critical of the occupation of Palestine, and some of the clearly genocidal statements that were given in response to October 7th came from politicians labeled as leftwing in the current Knesset. So no, I wouldn't say that the average Israeli agrees with me on human rights, I believe that muslims are also human and deserving of those and I don't reckon the average Israeli believes that. This situation didn't happen because the Israeli people are especially evil, by the way, there's no such thing as an evil group of humans, or as an evil human for that matter. They grew up in a culture and in an environment that viewed Palestinians as subhuman, the enemy, and so it was much easier for them to develop extremist views on this topic (much like Palestinians can easily develop extremist views when it comes to Israelis (or Jews) due to their own circumstances). There are obviously Israelis who have similar opinions to me when it comes to human rights, and they are to be celebrated. It took me a while to see what was wrong with the society I live in, and there was much less pressure on me than there is on them. They're heroes. Here are a few: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/pro-palestinian-israelis-face-threats-but-vow-to-keep-fighting-for-peaceYoutubehttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/23/israel-man-jailed-refuse-serve-idf-military-tal-mitnick-interviewhttps://www.vice.com/en/article/gyazzj/meet-the-taylor-swift-stan-who-went-to-jailYoutube I'll answer this more fully later but in short the differences are the Holocaust, that every nation their wants to kill them all and is actively trying to do so, and that they are the one ally in the area. Israel is not unique in that it gets support while being FAR from perfect, just look a couple nations over at SA. Many people seem to mistake what I'm saying to be that Israel is perfect, it is far from that. Is it the "best" nation in the area as far as respecting its own citizens human rights, yes I believe it is. Is it the best at doing so outside of its borders, no it is not. But is it the worst, no it is not. It is probably in the middle or above average in the outside of the borders as well.
Saudi Arabia has oil, I don’t like it but they do have some leverage. I personally find them and the various Gulf States utterly contemptible, and of all the territories the British ever ceded those were the worst calls in retrospect.
But there very much is a pragmatic, self-interested argument to supporting those countries, as much as I dislike it.
|
Re: comparisons between IRA & Hamas and how much worse and hateful Hamas is:
During the Troubles, over 1000 British servicemen were killed by IRA & friends, and vast majority of the ~1900 civilian deaths in that conflict were a direct result of IRA attacks, with something like 80% of them being loyalists. IRA and affiliated groups have lost around 500 members.
The death toll in the Palestine-Israel conflict for the past 20 years prior to the October attacks was at roughly ~10k Palestinians to 500 Israelis, and that's without counting injuries, disease, starvation, forced resettlement, and so on.
Casualties of the October attacks and the following military operation are at ~30k Palestinians to ~1500 Israelis.
|
So the apparent reason why there hasn't been answer on the ceasefire agreement from Hamas is there a dispute within Hamas itself, between the militant leaders and the exiled political leaders in Qatar on who can make the decision. That and what the agreement should actually be.
Meanwhile all this all plays into Netanyahu's rightwing coalition.
Divisions between the top leaders of Hamas are preventing the militant group from signing off on a U.S.-backed proposal to stop the fighting in Gaza and free more hostages, according to officials familiar with the negotiations.
In a reversal of the group’s usual dynamics, Hamas’s top leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, and others, weary after months of war, say they are ready to accept the proposal for an initial six-week pause in fighting, the officials said. The organization’s exiled political leaders, though, are demanding more concessions and want to negotiate a permanent cease-fire, they said.
Hamas’s internal disagreement is one of an array of obstacles facing the potential deal, the broad outlines of which were agreed upon by intelligence chiefs from the U.S., Israel, Egypt and Qatar last weekend, according to the Qatari prime minister and others familiar with the talks. The proposal calls for an initial six-week pause in fighting, far longer than the weeklong cease-fire in November, and sets out a phased release of hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. Negotiators plan to use the pause to broker an end to the war, making it difficult for Israel to resume a full-scale military campaign.
Hamas’s political wing is asking for nearly 3,000 Palestinian prisoners to be freed—including some who were arrested after the Oct. 7 attack on Israel that sparked the current conflict—in exchange for 36 civilian hostages, Egyptian officials said. The militant group also is demanding that the hostage release be extended to four phases instead of three, the officials said.
Israeli negotiators, meanwhile, are demanding a full list of all hostages, alive and dead, and assurance from Hamas that they would all be released in the multiphase deal, the officials said. Hamas officials argued that they would need more time to locate all the hostages, especially those who might have died due to Israeli strikes on Gaza, they added.
The proposal also awaits a decision from Israel’s war cabinet led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after it received broad approval from the head of the Mossad intelligence agency, who participated in the negotiations. Netanyahu’s ultranationalist coalition partners are opposed to an agreement that could lead to the end of the war. Others in Israel favor a deal as the most viable way to free some of the remaining hostages held by militants in Gaza.
The U.S. is pressing for a cease-fire deal in the hope it would lead to a lasting truce amid a spiraling humanitarian crisis, escalating death toll in the strip and the specter of wider regional conflict. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is set to travel to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Israel and the West Bank starting on Sunday as part of efforts to secure a deal that would free hostages and pause the fighting in Gaza, the State Department said Friday.
Amid the negotiations, the U.S. began a series of airstrikes on Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Iraq on Friday, hitting seven facilities in a bid to deter further attacks against American forces in the region after three U.S. service members were killed in a deadly drone strike in Jordan on Sunday. The response to the drone strike—which had been launched from Iraq by an Iranian-backed militia—is expected to unfold as a set of operations over several days, U.S. defense officials said.
President Biden on Friday traveled to Dover Air Force Base, Del., to honor the return of the three soldiers. The president met with family members of the fallen soldiers in private and then took part in the somber ceremony, where he was joined by a group that included first lady Jill Biden, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Despite the numerous obstacles to a cease-fire deal, officials brokering the talks have expressed optimism in recent days that they can bridge the remaining gaps in the coming weeks. Even if a deal is agreed, officials and analysts tracking the talks say that both the Israeli government and Hamas have reason to potentially return to fighting before a long-term cease-fire can be negotiated.
Hamas at first unilaterally demanded a longer-term cease-fire in Gaza, but the group’s leadership within the enclave now appears closer to accepting the current proposal, according to officials familiar with the talks. Negotiators proposed the current framework as a way to bridge the divide between the militants and the Israeli government, who wanted a short-term pause in fighting.
Sinwar is ready to accept a six-week pause, thinking it would give Hamas’s forces time to regroup and allow humanitarian aid to reach civilians in Gaza, officials said. Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the group’s political bureau, has argued in recent days that the group needs to negotiate a permanent cease-fire guaranteed by foreign powers, along with a plan to rebuild Gaza, they said.
“Their families are being killed,” one of the officials said of Hamas leaders in Gaza, referring to their apparent willingness to compromise in the cease-fire talks.
Hamas declined to comment on the divisions within the group’s leadership and reiterated that it hadn’t made a final decision on the truce agreement.
Israel’s war cabinet, caught between right-wing members of Netanyahu’s governing coalition and sections of the Israeli public who are demanding a deal to free the hostages, also hasn’t rendered a decision on the agreement. Netanyahu earlier this week said that ending the war was a “red line” he wouldn’t cross.
Domestic political pressure is rising on the Israeli government to strike a deal. Former Israeli officials, hostage negotiators and military analysts say an agreement could be the only way to secure the release of around 130 hostages still in Gaza, including the bodies of those who have died.
Israeli military officials have said they need to continue fighting to amplify pressure on Hamas and gain more favorable terms in negotiations. Israel this week vowed that its forces would target Hamas in Rafah, the southern Gaza city packed with civilians sheltering from the war.
“We are achieving our missions in Khan Younis, and we will also reach Rafah and eliminate terror elements that threaten us,” Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said late Thursday.
Doing so would hasten the release of the hostages, he added during a visit to Khan Younis, Hamas’s last major stronghold in the strip. Rafah has previously come under Israeli bombardment. Gallant didn’t provide details about the Israeli military’s plan for Rafah.
Any Israeli military operation in Rafah, an area in the southern Gaza Strip that abuts Egypt, could open a risky new phase of the war. More than a million Palestinian civilians crowded into the area after the Israeli military urged Palestinians to move southward for their own safety. Aid workers and Palestinian residents warn that a military offensive in the area would deepen Gaza’s humanitarian crisis.
More than 27,000 people, most of them women and children, have been killed in Gaza since Israel launched its military campaign aimed at uprooting Hamas from power, according to Palestinian health officials, whose numbers don’t distinguish between civilians and combatants. The offensive began in response to a Hamas attack that Israel says killed more than 1,200 people, most of them civilians, across a swath of southern Israel.
Source
|
The proposal also awaits a decision from Israel’s war cabinet led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Who said it was not going to happen.
Also important to note a lot of the pressure on Netanyahu is for him to recover the hostages before continuing Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign, not to stop the ethnic cleansing campaign itself.
~50% say they oppose the deal (it's unclear exactly how the deal was described other than the prisoner part). ~40% of Israelis openly support colonizing Gaza. Over 70% of Israelis support starving innocent Palestinian women and children as a hostage recovery strategy.
They literally physically intervened to prevent those women and children (and the hostages they are ostensibly concerned about) from getting desperately needed basic supplies to survive.
Earlier this week, the IDF declared the Kerem Shalom crossing into Gaza a closed military zone after some relatives of hostages and other activists repeatedly demonstrated there and blocked aid from getting through.
www.timesofisrael.com
|
|
|
On February 04 2024 05:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2024 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote:The proposal also awaits a decision from Israel’s war cabinet led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Who said it was not going to happen. Also important to note a lot of the pressure on Netanyahu is for him to recover the hostages before continuing Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign, not to stop the ethnic cleansing campaign itself. ~50% say they oppose the deal (it's unclear exactly how the deal was described other than the prisoner part). ~40% of Israelis openly support colonizing Gaza. Over 70% of Israelis support starving innocent Palestinian women and children as a hostage recovery strategy. They literally physically intervened to prevent those women and children (and the hostages they are ostensibly concerned about) from getting desperately needed basic supplies to survive. Earlier this week, the IDF declared the Kerem Shalom crossing into Gaza a closed military zone after some relatives of hostages and other activists repeatedly demonstrated there and blocked aid from getting through. www.timesofisrael.com What percentage of Gazans celebrated and support the killing of Israelis? What percentage of Ukrainian would support Ukraine committing the ware crimes of the Russians back at them? None of this is unique or shocking.
You're conflating oppressor and oppressed.
|
|
|
On February 04 2024 08:22 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2024 05:53 Cricketer12 wrote:On February 04 2024 05:46 JimmiC wrote:On February 04 2024 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote:The proposal also awaits a decision from Israel’s war cabinet led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Who said it was not going to happen. Also important to note a lot of the pressure on Netanyahu is for him to recover the hostages before continuing Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign, not to stop the ethnic cleansing campaign itself. ~50% say they oppose the deal (it's unclear exactly how the deal was described other than the prisoner part). ~40% of Israelis openly support colonizing Gaza. Over 70% of Israelis support starving innocent Palestinian women and children as a hostage recovery strategy. They literally physically intervened to prevent those women and children (and the hostages they are ostensibly concerned about) from getting desperately needed basic supplies to survive. Earlier this week, the IDF declared the Kerem Shalom crossing into Gaza a closed military zone after some relatives of hostages and other activists repeatedly demonstrated there and blocked aid from getting through. www.timesofisrael.com What percentage of Gazans celebrated and support the killing of Israelis? What percentage of Ukrainian would support Ukraine committing the ware crimes of the Russians back at them? None of this is unique or shocking. You're conflating oppressor and oppressed. I'm not playing a word game. People make bad choices when a bunch of their friends and family die, it doesn't matter if they are white, brown, men, women, Israeli, Palestinian, Ukrainian or anything. What is required is someone in power to be the adult in the room and not go back and forth eye for the eye but it rarely happens. I get annoyed when people try to make the Israelis out as uniquely evil, they simply are not.
I agree with 95% of this. Israelis aren't uniquely evil no, however wanting to do evil and having access to an ak is a lot worse than wanting to do evil and having access to a baseball bat.
|
|
|
On February 03 2024 03:26 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2024 23:33 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2024 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:On February 02 2024 21:04 schaf wrote:On February 02 2024 21:02 Magic Powers wrote:On February 02 2024 20:27 schaf wrote:On February 02 2024 20:04 Magic Powers wrote:
[...]
Here we have Jewish people committing an atrocity of the same nature that Hamas is being accused of, and yet... there's of course no way Jewish settlers, the IDF or the Israeli administration could be just as evil as Hamas. There's just absolutely no way.
[...] One person died, it's not even remotely comparable. The Israeli Government condemned it. Do you recall what Hamas leaders said about Oct 7th? And they are not accused, they themselves say they did it and that they will do it again. "One person died"? In what reality do you live? Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed in the West bank over the past few months. Well you referenced that one event You're misrepresenting reality if you leave it at "one person died". The reality is that Palestinians in the West bank are being killed at an unprecedented rate. This is rarely being mentioned in this thread, and it's never been acknowledged by the individuals around here who have an anti-Palestinian bias. Whenever I've mentioned it, practically no one has acknowledged it. There's no discussion about how evil Jewish settlers are and how this would impact the conflict at large, and whether or not this proves that Palestinian support for Hamas is within reason, and not born out of evil. Furthermore, it's not like those Jewish settlers wouldn't have killed more Palestinians if they could've. They've been demonstrating in recent months how willing they are to commit crimes of the same nature as that of Hamas. Hundreds of deaths prove their intent. And have you seen GH's contributions to that part of the conflict? The TikTok trends? You need better sources and then your posts will make a lot more sense. And of course Resistance fighters are not all good people. But once you start raping women of all ages and killing babies I would hope you would see that a line has been crossed. This reminds me of a previous discussion and wanted to share some findings, this was after a really quick search, there may be more ... Looks like the IDF itself isn't carrying out rape/sexual assualt on Gazan civies, however those jailed/in administrative detention are suffering sexual abuse as a tactic to force a confession out of the accused party.
Just a few thoughts upon looking into your sources:
Just FYI, PressTV is an Iranian State owned news network and Middle East Monitor (according to Wikipedia) "is regarded as an outlet for the Muslim Brotherhood[10][11] and its website strongly promotes pro-Hamas related content.[12][13]. MEMO is financed by the State of Qatar."
Not that everything they say on this topic is necessarily inaccurate. It's pretty believable that the prisons are overcrowded right now for instance. Since you brought this up in response to a quote about rape though, I'll point out that the only quote they bring regarding rape is reflexive. That is, they don't say "Israeli security forces are raping prisoners" they say "The situation in the prison is devastating...They are being raped." Given that prisons the world over have such a reputation for prisoner on prisoner rape to the extent that there is even a known saying of "don't drop the soap," I would suggest that this is no different. The real sexual violence is prisoner on prisoner. Especially given that the UN Report, which is attempting to document every crime ever done by Israel in it's prisons, doesn't mention rape once.
Meanwhile, if I was a woman, I would also feel sexually assaulted if someone searched me thoroughly for weapons. But also, if I were a security agency with custody of a known female terrorist who regularly proclaims those values, I would still ensure she was searched for weapons. (Also, my understanding is that Israel does use female officers to do such searches.)
It's pretty clear from this article that this is dealing with soldier on soldier issues within the IDF. It's still horrible obviously, but it has less to do with the conflict and more to do with having a co-ed army. That is, a lot of the IDF is 18 and 19 year old men and women who end up spending a lot of time together. University campuses face similar issues.
On the plus side, the co-ed army may also explain why there is such a surprisingly low incidence of sexual violence on Palestinians (unlike most armies which always have bad eggs do stuff like that). You're a lot less likely to feel up some captive when your female friend is standing right there.
This case is terrible. But also, the fact that you had to go back over 70 years to find a clear case of IDF rape strongly supports your thesis that the IDF as an institution is not engaging in sexual violence against Palestinians. Especially since even the people involved in that case had to hide what they'd done for shame/fear of the consequences of sharing what they had done with their compatriots.
|
On February 03 2024 15:28 Salazarz wrote:
Re: comparisons between IRA & Hamas and how much worse and hateful Hamas is:
During the Troubles, over 1000 British servicemen were killed by IRA & friends, and vast majority of the ~1900 civilian deaths in that conflict were a direct result of IRA attacks, with something like 80% of them being loyalists. IRA and affiliated groups have lost around 500 members.
The death toll in the Palestine-Israel conflict for the past 20 years prior to the October attacks was at roughly ~10k Palestinians to 500 Israelis, and that's without counting injuries, disease, starvation, forced resettlement, and so on.
Casualties of the October attacks and the following military operation are at ~30k Palestinians to ~1500 Israelis.
That's an interesting slice of time that conveniently excludes both Intifadas and most of the major wars, many of which lead to thousands of Israeli deaths, and obviously inform Israel's actions to this day.
More to the point though: Kill/Death ratios are for comparing your skills in video games, not establishing moral high ground, so I'm not sure why people keep doing it. In WW2, only around 400k Americans died while 6-8 million Germans died. That does not make the Americans the bad guys and the Germans the good guys in that war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
