| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9799 Posts
People act like for a group to be that evil, they must be called Hamas. If Hamas surrenders, you wait 5 years and some other Iran backed group takes over and exploits the misery Israel have inflicted on the Palestinians. Israel knows this. Its why they are trying to kill Palestinians just as much as they are trying to kill Hamas. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On May 11 2024 06:30 Cerebrate1 wrote: I never claimed anyone wanted Hamas in power Excuse me? On May 10 2024 11:26 Cerebrate1 wrote: If not, please explain why you think keeping Hamas in power is a good thing. Do you forget things you say after just a few hours? I strongly suggest that you re-read your own comments when people call you out instead of stubbornly doubling down and trying to gaslight us. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On May 11 2024 06:30 Cerebrate1 wrote: But the logic of my question applies there too. Do you feel that removing settlements in isolation would be a good thing? If so, why don't you think that reducing radicalism in Gaza (like antisemitism taught in schools and the like) would be good in isolation? Or perhaps you do agree that deradicalization would be good in Gaza and I misunderstood your point above. Feel free to clarify either way. My argument isn't that deradicalization of Palestinians in and of itself wouldn't be good. My argument is that demanding deradicalization of Palestinians without also demanding the discontinuation of Jewish settlements would be wrong. If someone asks exclusively for the latter but not the former, that's wrong. If someone asks exclusively for the former but not the latter, that's also wrong. Both demands must be made at the same time. One cannot come without the other, because it'd be a colossal injustice for the other side if only one side was made to concede (edit: I worded that sentence poorly, but I think people get what I mean). | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13994 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12425 Posts
There's an injustice and a reaction to injustice. Would people like it if the injustice was solved? Yes. Would people like it if the reaction to injustice didn't happen? Yes. Now we're going to twist and turn the situation to word it in a way in which the reaction to injustice doesn't happen but there's no word on what happens to the injustice, are people fine with that? Well... It's weird. It looks like what someone would say if they wanted the injustice to continue. So people will be less inclined to agree with this. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1961 Posts
There are so many things Israel could have done before Hamas came to power and while Hamas came to power to improve Palestinian live and create political and economical perspectives for them. It's my main argument what they should do. Yet they don't, usually with the argument that Hamas exists. So, they are now telling us they have a plan to rebuild Gaza into a perpetual mobile trashcan after defeating Hamas and then they 2 soldiers die to a carbomb and whoops, rebuilding cancelled indefinitely. Meanwhile, the Westbank is still not treated better and you argue that we should be happy that Hamas is being removed because every bit helps. No. Because the current Israeli government is actively throwing oil into the fire while ignoring all the low hanging fruit they could do to actually help the situation. It's me wanting praise from my wife because I just finished playing my Victoria 3 playthrough, because now I only have 7 more games on my list before I can help with the chores. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
It's important to understand that an official declaration of famine would come at a time when it's far too late to save people. Thousands would be dead by then. The time to prevent that is right now. A the same time, while every independent analyst says that this is clearly happening, Israel is completely denying it and saying the house isn't actually burning. This means no steps will be taken to prevent the famine. https://www.voanews.com/a/un-says-there-s-full-blown-famine-in-northern-gaza-what-does-that-mean-/7604031.html | ||
|
pmp10
3390 Posts
US will not allow mass famine that can be tied to their actions. Even Biden has limits to the political damage he is willing to take for Israel. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On May 12 2024 00:57 pmp10 wrote: The war will likely be resolved before any starvation takes place. US will not allow mass famine that can be tied to their actions. Even Biden has limits to the political damage he is willing to take for Israel. Reports of widespread starvation have been piling up since at least February and it's been affecting one third of the population for several months, with numbers rising just as predicted. Are there actually signs of Biden being afraid of the fallout? Is he willing to cut military ties? Because that's the only real consequence Netanyahu could be afraid of. Famine will be called when it's already too late. By then it'll also be too late to warn Israel. Are there any reports of Biden properly addressing the threat of famine? | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2752 Posts
On May 11 2024 07:27 Magic Powers wrote: My argument isn't that deradicalization of Palestinians in and of itself wouldn't be good. My argument is that demanding deradicalization of Palestinians without also demanding the discontinuation of Jewish settlements would be wrong. If someone asks exclusively for the latter but not the former, that's wrong. If someone asks exclusively for the former but not the latter, that's also wrong. Both demands must be made at the same time. One cannot come without the other, because it'd be a colossal injustice for the other side if only one side was made to concede (edit: I worded that sentence poorly, but I think people get what I mean). "The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must". The Mellian argument is hardly a good comparison but political realism has been a thing since ancient times. | ||
|
Cerebrate1
265 Posts
On May 11 2024 07:19 Magic Powers wrote: Excuse me? Do you forget things you say after just a few hours? I strongly suggest that you re-read your own comments when people call you out instead of stubbornly doubling down and trying to gaslight us. Perhaps I should break down my post. Only some people followed it, so perhaps I didn't explain well. First of all, when I stated "everyone's opinion on Hamas", I literally said this: On May 10 2024 11:26 Cerebrate1 wrote: So now Hamas. Who everyone on this thread agrees are bad guys. It's actually one of the few sentences in my post that is a simple statement of fact instead of a question or more complex logical formulation. Then I asked if people here would like Israel to make concessions in isolation. Like stopping all settlement building. Anyone who said no to that question (as you seem to in your following post) would basically make the rest of my post not apply to them, but anyone who does believe Israel should make concessions in isolation, should logically also be happy if progress towards peace is made on the other side, like removing Hamas from power. Anyone who was following this logic (who didn't take your reasonable out), should have at this point thought, "yes, of course I want Hamas out of power, even in isolation (possibly with reservations of how that can happen in practice)" IF they did NOT conclude "yes I want Hamas out of power even in isolation," (Note this is the critical "IF NOT" from the line you quoted), then the only logical conclusion would be that they felt that Hamas being in power was actually a good thing somehow. To which I pre-emtively asked why someone would take such a stance. Happily, no one did take that stance, so we all agree that them being removed would be good in theory. There are just a number of practical reservations people have about doing it in reality. On May 11 2024 07:27 Magic Powers wrote: My argument isn't that deradicalization of Palestinians in and of itself wouldn't be good. My argument is that demanding deradicalization of Palestinians without also demanding the discontinuation of Jewish settlements would be wrong. If someone asks exclusively for the latter but not the former, that's wrong. If someone asks exclusively for the former but not the latter, that's also wrong. Both demands must be made at the same time. One cannot come without the other, because it'd be a colossal injustice for the other side if only one side was made to concede (edit: I worded that sentence poorly, but I think people get what I mean). This is a perfectly reasonable take. Thank you for speaking it out so we could get on the same page! To clarify, your stance based on this effectively side steps the whole logic chain of my post by exiting at stage one. You want Israel and Palestine to each make their steps towards peace at the same time. On May 11 2024 07:13 Jockmcplop wrote: Whether or not Hamas is in charge is irrelevant. People act like for a group to be that evil, they must be called Hamas. If Hamas surrenders, you wait 5 years and some other Iran backed group takes over and exploits the misery Israel have inflicted on the Palestinians. Israel knows this. Its why they are trying to kill Palestinians just as much as they are trying to kill Hamas. I hear the concern. I think that's why the plan attempts to make Gaza a better place and also has a delay where other Arab forces are in charge. On May 11 2024 08:06 Cricketer12 wrote: Cerebrate, I think it's fair to say we all agree Hamas' nonexistence would be a net positive. I believe the strong reaction comes from a confusion of the focus on that point as one to address first to improve the conflict. As others have said removal of Hamas in and of itself does next to nothing, and will more likely become meaningful change as an implication of other changes (as discussed, increasing the prosperity of Gaza to dissuade the need for radicalization). Thanks for the particularly nice tone of you post! I appreciate your raising the standards of this thread. I think you may be underestimating the power of regime change. Iran under the Shah was a friend of Israel and the West. One government later, it is the polar opposite. Even Gaza switching from Fatah (a nationalist organization) to Hamas (an Islamist organization) was pretty significant, even though both organizations share many similar themes in their charters. On May 11 2024 17:58 Broetchenholer wrote: the big issue i have with that Plan you posted is that iam not buying it. I can make AI generated Images of utopia all I want, if my actions and my other rhetoric show that I actually do not want any of that, then that is just bullshit. It's like my wife asking me to take out the trash now and me responding I can't do it now because I need to keep playing video games but tomorrow I will invent a trashcan that auto empties and creates green energy out of the trash and smells like roses afterwards. And then I ask AI to make a picture of that to show my wife as proof of my intentions. There are so many things Israel could have done before Hamas came to power and while Hamas came to power to improve Palestinian live and create political and economical perspectives for them. It's my main argument what they should do. Yet they don't, usually with the argument that Hamas exists. So, they are now telling us they have a plan to rebuild Gaza into a perpetual mobile trashcan after defeating Hamas and then they 2 soldiers die to a carbomb and whoops, rebuilding cancelled indefinitely. Meanwhile, the Westbank is still not treated better and you argue that we should be happy that Hamas is being removed because every bit helps. No. Because the current Israeli government is actively throwing oil into the fire while ignoring all the low hanging fruit they could do to actually help the situation. It's me wanting praise from my wife because I just finished playing my Victoria 3 playthrough, because now I only have 7 more games on my list before I can help with the chores. I hear your concerns about practical implementation. I'm not really sure why you can only be happy that Hamas is removed if Israel is an angel though. Unless you would also only be happy about settlement freezes if Hamas was an angel. I know this is basically what I already said, I guess I just don't see how what you said get's around that problem (unless you are just taking MPs route). | ||
|
Cerebrate1
265 Posts
On May 11 2024 07:04 Menkent wrote: Just killing Hamas militants does not eliminate Hamas. You can say that Israel has killed 8000 Hamas militants, or 12000 or whatever number that IDF spokesperson gave on Piers Morgan yesterday. But Hamas is still 100% in control of Gaza. Just like they were on October 6th. So wtf has Israel been doing? Israel is losing this war. You speculate about Saudi or Egypt taking control of Gaza. But this is 100% NOT the Israeli plan. If there's 3 militants and a single assault rifle left in Gaza when Israel is done, then Hamas is still in control of Gaza. Not Israel. Not the US. Not Egypt, Not the UN, Not Saudi. Not the Emirates. Not NATO or the EU. Not the PLO. But Hamas. The alternative that Israel has to accept is that Israel annexes Gaza. And they give every Palestinian in Gaza full Israeli citizenship, with full voting rights. The US has said that Israel has no plan for Gaza or for Rafah. Israel is simply trying to move in to kill Hamas. The US has said they are now withholding bombs because Israel is not trying to get someone else to govern Gaza. Saudi or Egypt or the Emirates or the UN, they won't send in peace keepers after Israel is done with wtf they are trying to do. Suggesting this is the case is utter bullshit. Israel needs a deal with those countries first before they bomb the shit out of Gaza. So you are simply wrong. It was YOUR argument that others here want Hamas to stay in power in Gaza. But you are the one supporting a policy that keeps Hamas in power in Gaza. While others are actually arguing against that. If Israel pulls out all troops and the last gun left in Gaza is owned by Hamas, I agree that Hamas will still be in charge. But if all those IDF tanks and troops stick around long enough to give someone else more guns than Hamas, then Hamas will be as neutered as ISIS was after other governments took control of it's territory. If you acknowledge that Israel has the potential to annex Gaza and become the government of Gaza, I'm not sure why you think they couldn't just install someone else as government instead once they are there. I suppose time will tell how well they succeed at convincing some of those other groups to join in with that. | ||
|
pmp10
3390 Posts
On May 12 2024 02:52 Magic Powers wrote: Reports of widespread starvation have been piling up since at least February and it's been affecting one third of the population for several months, with numbers rising just as predicted. Are there actually signs of Biden being afraid of the fallout? Is he willing to cut military ties? Because that's the only real consequence Netanyahu could be afraid of. Famine will be called when it's already too late. By then it'll also be too late to warn Israel. Are there any reports of Biden properly addressing the threat of famine? The aid deliveries to Gaza have been resumed mostly because of US pressure. There were food drops before and also there is that delivery dock the US is building. Expecting Biden to do more is not realistic, the threat of famine is overblown and pressure on him and US is nowhere that strong. | ||
|
Menkent
22 Posts
On May 12 2024 13:49 Cerebrate1 wrote: Perhaps I should break down my post. Only some people followed it, so perhaps I didn't explain well. Despite this contradiction of yourself you are going to make next, your post were very clear. The only problem is, your opinion is a shit opinion. No amount of clarification is going to save you there, mate. Then I asked if people here would like Israel to make concessions in isolation. Like stopping all settlement building. Israel stopping building new settlements isn't a concession. And you know this. A two-state settlement is made permanently impossible by Israeli West bank settlements. Let's get to the point. You are deliberately arguing in bad faith. You just now made a new wall of text. You know you are talking with pro-two state settlement people. But you want to argue for a one state solution. Let's cut the crap already. Let's stop pretending you are the two state solution side. And everyone else here wants Hamas to drive Israel into the sea. Because that's what you are trying to imply. Now is your moment to clean up your act. And to engage in good faith. Or, to simply stop posting. Maybe this is not a subject you should voice your opinion on. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18252 Posts
I think it's entirely fair to ask both sides to de-escalate. I also think that neither Hamas nor Israel has shown the slightest interest in de-escalation. And of the two, Israel is by far the greater power. And that's where the shoe rubs, because if this was only about Gaza, I'd maybe sympathise with a point of view that sees October 7 as the straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to Palestinians' support for Hamas. However, while engaging in a full scale war in Gaza, Israeli settlers have steadily amped up violence in the West Bank as well, where Hamas is not in power, with explicit government and military support. And I very much agree with Magic Powers when he doubts Israel's good intentions for their utopian plan with Gaza when they are treating the West Bank the way they do. Broetchenholer's metaphor about taking our the trash was apt. | ||
|
Menkent
22 Posts
Please read my posts more carefully. You'd finally learn something. User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On May 12 2024 14:41 pmp10 wrote: The aid deliveries to Gaza have been resumed mostly because of US pressure. There were food drops before and also there is that delivery dock the US is building. Expecting Biden to do more is not realistic, the threat of famine is overblown and pressure on him and US is nowhere that strong. The article makes very clear that the threat of famine is real and should be taken extremely seriously. It is absolutely NOT "overblown" as you call it for some reason unbeknownst to me. Where do you get your information from? What makes you more knowledgeable than the people who are analyzing the threat of famine? The foreign aid drops are insufficient so they can't prevent the famine. This is also explained in the article. It is clear that Israel has to let in far more aid to prevent a famine, and it is also explained that an offensive in Rafah would likely be the final trigger of an official famine. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26505 Posts
On May 12 2024 17:22 Acrofales wrote: Unlike Euphorbus's umpteenth alt, I am happy Cerebrate is here to discuss their opinion with us. I don't need this to be an echo chamber where we only talk with entirely like-minded people about how it's crazy that we all agree. I think it's entirely fair to ask both sides to de-escalate. I also think that neither Hamas nor Israel has shown the slightest interest in de-escalation. And of the two, Israel is by far the greater power. And that's where the shoe rubs, because if this was only about Gaza, I'd maybe sympathise with a point of view that sees October 7 as the straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to Palestinians' support for Hamas. However, while engaging in a full scale war in Gaza, Israeli settlers have steadily amped up violence in the West Bank as well, where Hamas is not in power, with explicit government and military support. And I very much agree with Magic Powers when he doubts Israel's good intentions for their utopian plan with Gaza when they are treating the West Bank the way they do. Broetchenholer's metaphor about taking our the trash was apt. Indeed, and as concessions go it’s a hell of a lot easier to halt settlement expansion than something like removing Hamas, or a similar entity from Palestinian political and cultural life. There’s plenty ambiguous grey in this conflict, but further settlement expansion to me has long been something of a clear-cut, black and white issue. | ||
|
pmp10
3390 Posts
On May 12 2024 20:09 Magic Powers wrote: The article makes very clear that the threat of famine is real and should be taken extremely seriously. It is absolutely NOT "overblown" as you call it for some reason unbeknownst to me. Where do you get your information from? What makes you more knowledgeable than the people who are analyzing the threat of famine? I've heard enough political attacks to know one, if we want to see real potential for famine we can look at Sudan. As for authority on starvation - I'm sure I can find plenty in Israel saying that it's not happening in Gaza. The war is simply past the famine point. Israel has tried to use it, but it either didn't work or they were forced to give-up. | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13994 Posts
On May 13 2024 04:31 pmp10 wrote: I've heard enough political attacks to know one, if we want to see real potential for famine we can look at Sudan. As for authority on starvation - I'm sure I can find plenty in Israel saying that it's not happening in Gaza. The war is simply past the famine point. Israel has tried to use it, but it either didn't work or they were forced to give-up. Why would Israel ever admit to starvation/famine in Gaza? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2 9306Horang2  1962actioN 817Hyuk 566ggaemo 545BeSt 351Mind  222Zeus 208Pusan 90Sharp 87[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations Counter-Strike Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
BSL
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
