|
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 August 16 2024 05:13 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 20:44 Nebuchad wrote:
Uldridge: => "Don't you get it? They can't do it explicitly, because that would dry up their big Benjamins stream real quick.
They need to genocide covertly so that no one (i.e. everyone) can understand what they are actually doing.
It's so easy to paint everything black and white"
This looks sarcastic so I'm curious why this isn't true? Do you have more insight on this cause I was curious about that
How would I? I don't have intimate knowledge of how the diplomatic relations between Israel and its allies functions. I don't know how the US conditionals for support work or how they communicate them or how they publicly and covertly evaluate all this because there are so many things happening at the same time.
Maybe there is a sticky note in the oval office or the pentagon somewhere saying: make Israel a nucleus of conflict in the Middle East at all cost for as long as possible, who knows.
I was merely ridiculing the fact that if they're so blatently 'implicitly, but not so implicitly because everyone can see what they're doing' genociding a people, which is, probably, the most heinous act you can do, why aren't they being sanctioned much harder? I think I'm not that naive to think world powers are saints or the West has the moral high ground, but they would surely sanction a country much harder when it's so obvious for everyone to see what they're doing, right?
|
On August 16 2024 05:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Israel is ostensibly supposed to be accountable to international law. Were they not a cudgel for US hegemony, they'd have been sanctioned into the ground by now, ending their aggression.
Do you know how international law actually works? I surely don't. Does every country 100% hold itself to the agreements that have been made? If a country heavily profits from another that's going to be sanctioned, do they just need to take one for the team?
How do you know Israel would stop if US ended, or severly reduced, their support?
|
On August 16 2024 05:27 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 05:13 Nebuchad wrote:On July 09 2024 20:44 Nebuchad wrote:
Uldridge: => "Don't you get it? They can't do it explicitly, because that would dry up their big Benjamins stream real quick.
They need to genocide covertly so that no one (i.e. everyone) can understand what they are actually doing.
It's so easy to paint everything black and white"
This looks sarcastic so I'm curious why this isn't true? Do you have more insight on this cause I was curious about that How would I? I don't have intimate knowledge of how the diplomatic relations between Israel and its allies functions. I don't know how the US conditionals for support work or how they communicate them or how they publicly and covertly evaluate all this because there are so many things happening at the same time. Maybe there is a sticky note in the oval office or the pentagon somewhere saying: make Israel a nucleus of conflict in the Middle East at all cost for as long as possible, who knows. I was merely ridiculing the fact that if they're so blatently ' implicitly, but not so implicitly because everyone can see what they're doing' genociding a people, which is, probably, the most heinous act you can do, why aren't they being sanctioned much harder? I think I'm not that naive to think world powers are saints or the West has the moral high ground, but they would surely sanction a country much harder when it's so obvious for everyone to see what they're doing, right?
Hmm, I don't know. There is a lot of plausible deniability going on in the West, don't you think? If Israel was to be more upfront about what they're doing, in a way that would result in the amount of casualties that evil people like Velr expect, it would be much harder for the West to go "Oh yeah Israel is just defending itself" and all of the other narratives that we hear thrown around.
Now I don't have more intimate knowledge than you do, but I can see patterns, especially when the patterns are extremely obvious because as you know, I'm not very smart. So let's see, we have a far right government, including open fascists, who wants to expand its lebensraum. We can tell that they want that very easily through their actions (doing everything they can to increase the number of illegal settlements in the West Bank) and their words (showing a map of Greater Israel at UN speech). The number of Palestinians that is there today is an obstacle to this goal, as if we were to just annex Palestine, it would cause Israel to be populated by too many Arabs, and as such you couldn't just give them israeli citizenship and voting rights, it would threaten the jewish supremacist nature of our state. So ideologically, based on this end goal and with the added general perception of arab inferiority, it makes a lot of logical sense to want to remove as many of them as possible, either through displacing or through killing them. It would make a lot less sense to be super concerned with their wellbeing and their survival.
That's for the marketplace of ideas, so let's come back to the real world, where we, again, have a plethora of declarations that are in line with this theory of what's happening: we know that as far back as 1989, Netanyahu was concerned with how the actions of Israel were perceived on the global stage. Talking shortly after what happened in Tian'an men Square, he said that “Israel should have taken advantage of the suppression of the demonstrations in China, while the world’s attention was focused on these events, and should have carried out mass deportations of Arabs from the territories. Unfortunately, this plan I proposed did not gain support, yet I still suggest to put it into action.”
What we see here is a willingness to ethnically cleanse Palestine, but a concern that we can't do it too openly, when the world is focused on us. This is not the mindset of someone who doesn't care about appearances. But it is the mindset of someone who absolutely wants to do it.
It is the same sentiment that we find again today when Smotrich says that "It may be ‘justified’ to starve 2 million Gazans, but world won’t let us"
So, yes. I think this theory makes a lot of sense, even though I don't have much intimate knowledge. I also happen to think that he's right, there is definitely a line after which the West wouldn't defend Israel, that may be naive but I still hold on to that. I think we see in some reactions, such as that of Spain, Ireland, Norway, and to a lesser extent France, that we're very close to the line. In my opinion we should have been past the line for quite some time, but what can I say, I'm just some guy.
|
On August 16 2024 05:12 Uldridge wrote:
That does not make any sense.
Neither side can tolerate aggression, ergo Israel should stop. You're making a choice based on emotional attachment.
The correct answer is both sides should stop. If both sides can't stop, then both sides won't stop. This conflict maybe used to have been a forgiving tit for tat, but now it's devolved into a tit for tat ad infinitum. The trick is breaking out of the cycle. But blaming and condemning Israel for not doing so, is not the way to get there.
Note that I also find their civilian to Hamas ratios completely disproportional to the point of war crimes, but I don't have enough insight in the way Israel operates, nor can I say with confidence who actually reports things correctly so I wisely stay away from forming a polarized opinion.
It makes perfect sense if you consider that the war has been taking place inside Gaza and not in Israel for the last ten months.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Israel has the power.
|
On August 16 2024 05:43 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 05:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Israel is ostensibly supposed to be accountable to international law. Were they not a cudgel for US hegemony, they'd have been sanctioned into the ground by now, ending their aggression. Do you know how international law actually works? I surely don't. Does every country 100% hold itself to the agreements that have been made? If a country heavily profits from another that's going to be sanctioned, do they just need to take one for the team? How do you know Israel would stop if US ended, or severly reduced, their support?
The sanctions wouldn't just be the US cutting support, it'd be global economic sanctions comparable to what's been applied against Russia (though more universally supported by the world at the UN).
Israel doesn't have the domestic production or allies to wage their ongoing genocide against Palestinians under sanctions like that.
|
On August 16 2024 05:52 Nebuchad wrote:
So, yes. I think this theory makes a lot of sense, even though I don't have much intimate knowledge. I also happen to think that he's right, there is definitely a line after which the West wouldn't defend Israel, that may be naive but I still hold on to that. I think we see in some reactions, such as that of Spain, Ireland, Norway, and to a lesser extent France, that we're very close to the line. In my opinion we should have been past the line for quite some time, but what can I say, I'm just some guy. We saw such a line with Rafah. There was a lot of push back when Israel wanted to attack the city after filling it with over a million refugees.
|
On August 16 2024 06:00 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 05:12 Uldridge wrote:
That does not make any sense.
Neither side can tolerate aggression, ergo Israel should stop. You're making a choice based on emotional attachment.
The correct answer is both sides should stop. If both sides can't stop, then both sides won't stop. This conflict maybe used to have been a forgiving tit for tat, but now it's devolved into a tit for tat ad infinitum. The trick is breaking out of the cycle. But blaming and condemning Israel for not doing so, is not the way to get there.
Note that I also find their civilian to Hamas ratios completely disproportional to the point of war crimes, but I don't have enough insight in the way Israel operates, nor can I say with confidence who actually reports things correctly so I wisely stay away from forming a polarized opinion. It makes perfect sense if you consider that the war has been taking place inside Gaza and not in Israel for the last ten months. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Israel has the power.
In war, it is not the responsibility of the superior force to quit. It is the responsibility of the inferior force to surrender. Until the inferior force surrenders, the war will go on and many people will die. Hamas can end this war whenever they want by surrendering unconditionally.
|
Norway28675 Posts
On August 16 2024 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 06:00 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2024 05:12 Uldridge wrote:
That does not make any sense.
Neither side can tolerate aggression, ergo Israel should stop. You're making a choice based on emotional attachment.
The correct answer is both sides should stop. If both sides can't stop, then both sides won't stop. This conflict maybe used to have been a forgiving tit for tat, but now it's devolved into a tit for tat ad infinitum. The trick is breaking out of the cycle. But blaming and condemning Israel for not doing so, is not the way to get there.
Note that I also find their civilian to Hamas ratios completely disproportional to the point of war crimes, but I don't have enough insight in the way Israel operates, nor can I say with confidence who actually reports things correctly so I wisely stay away from forming a polarized opinion. It makes perfect sense if you consider that the war has been taking place inside Gaza and not in Israel for the last ten months. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Israel has the power. In war, it is not the responsibility of the superior force to quit. It is the responsibility of the inferior force to surrender. Until the inferior force surrenders, the war will go on and many people will die. Hamas can end this war whenever they want by surrendering unconditionally.
I hope that if you try to examine conflicts around the world throughout history through this very lens you just applied, you would realize that it's not a good lens to apply.
|
On August 16 2024 07:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 06:00 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2024 05:12 Uldridge wrote:
That does not make any sense.
Neither side can tolerate aggression, ergo Israel should stop. You're making a choice based on emotional attachment.
The correct answer is both sides should stop. If both sides can't stop, then both sides won't stop. This conflict maybe used to have been a forgiving tit for tat, but now it's devolved into a tit for tat ad infinitum. The trick is breaking out of the cycle. But blaming and condemning Israel for not doing so, is not the way to get there.
Note that I also find their civilian to Hamas ratios completely disproportional to the point of war crimes, but I don't have enough insight in the way Israel operates, nor can I say with confidence who actually reports things correctly so I wisely stay away from forming a polarized opinion. It makes perfect sense if you consider that the war has been taking place inside Gaza and not in Israel for the last ten months. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Israel has the power. In war, it is not the responsibility of the superior force to quit. It is the responsibility of the inferior force to surrender. Until the inferior force surrenders, the war will go on and many people will die. Hamas can end this war whenever they want by surrendering unconditionally. I hope that if you try to examine conflicts around the world throughout history through this very lens you just applied, you would realize that it's not a good lens to apply.
Can you give an example of what you are trying to say?
|
On August 16 2024 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 06:00 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2024 05:12 Uldridge wrote:
That does not make any sense.
Neither side can tolerate aggression, ergo Israel should stop. You're making a choice based on emotional attachment.
The correct answer is both sides should stop. If both sides can't stop, then both sides won't stop. This conflict maybe used to have been a forgiving tit for tat, but now it's devolved into a tit for tat ad infinitum. The trick is breaking out of the cycle. But blaming and condemning Israel for not doing so, is not the way to get there.
Note that I also find their civilian to Hamas ratios completely disproportional to the point of war crimes, but I don't have enough insight in the way Israel operates, nor can I say with confidence who actually reports things correctly so I wisely stay away from forming a polarized opinion. It makes perfect sense if you consider that the war has been taking place inside Gaza and not in Israel for the last ten months. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Israel has the power. In war, it is not the responsibility of the superior force to quit. It is the responsibility of the inferior force to surrender. Until the inferior force surrenders, the war will go on and many people will die. Hamas can end this war whenever they want by surrendering unconditionally.
Ah yes, lets walk back all the way to before the conception of the idea "with great power comes great responsibility". Ideally the weak would always surrender and the strong would always dominate. Dog eat dog world. Hurrah, we solved conflicts and human suffering.
|
Norway28675 Posts
On August 16 2024 09:48 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 07:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 16 2024 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 06:00 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2024 05:12 Uldridge wrote:
That does not make any sense.
Neither side can tolerate aggression, ergo Israel should stop. You're making a choice based on emotional attachment.
The correct answer is both sides should stop. If both sides can't stop, then both sides won't stop. This conflict maybe used to have been a forgiving tit for tat, but now it's devolved into a tit for tat ad infinitum. The trick is breaking out of the cycle. But blaming and condemning Israel for not doing so, is not the way to get there.
Note that I also find their civilian to Hamas ratios completely disproportional to the point of war crimes, but I don't have enough insight in the way Israel operates, nor can I say with confidence who actually reports things correctly so I wisely stay away from forming a polarized opinion. It makes perfect sense if you consider that the war has been taking place inside Gaza and not in Israel for the last ten months. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Israel has the power. In war, it is not the responsibility of the superior force to quit. It is the responsibility of the inferior force to surrender. Until the inferior force surrenders, the war will go on and many people will die. Hamas can end this war whenever they want by surrendering unconditionally. I hope that if you try to examine conflicts around the world throughout history through this very lens you just applied, you would realize that it's not a good lens to apply. Can you give an example of what you are trying to say?
In WW2 I think the forces that tried to resist nazi or japanese imperialism (or soviet for that matter) and occupation were heroic and ultimately these local, inferior forces constitued an important part of the effort to combat nazism/fascism. I've rarely ever seen people argue that Finland was wrong to not immediately surrender in the winter war, but France has been subject to some critique in that conflict. More recently, you might argue that Ukraine fits the bill, although with the support they've been getting they might not be inferior.
Basically how just a war effort is is most definitely not determined by how strong the armies are. If anything, there's an inverse relationship: an inferior army is only willing to fight a just war, while a superior army has fewer qualms with fighting a war with no moral justification.
|
@Nebuchad: Do you have any military experience? Just asking because you mentioned Lavender.
And as you implied occupation several times... In regards to the West Bank:
The WB was either Israeli territory after the declaration of independence according to uti possidetis juris.
Or it was occupied by Jordan who was no sovereign. If Jordan was never the sovereign to begin with, the land is not occupied. So why do you call this occupation by Israel? Or are you talking about a different region? Same question as to the other guy: Would you say Ukraine is occupying Crimea if they invade it and take it back from Russia in 15 years?
You also said that for Hamas to stop hurling rockets at Israel, Palestine's status would need to be recognized. At this point one could easily lose count on how many times the Palestinians were the ones denying partition plans, no?
@Acrofales: If the accusation of innocent Palestinians being used to explore potentially booby-trapped tunnels proves to be true, then everyone involved should be charged with war crimes (things like this will happen in a war and I am not denying them.. they are wrong and should not happen, but they will).
But do you deny the millions of calls, text messages, pamphlets as well as radio and TV transmissions Israel put out? Waiting weeks to attack which endangered their own soldiers with every passing day?
@Magic Powers: If ending the war is preventing casualties and a hypothetical goal of Israel is the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, which would result in the least amount of possible deaths in the future: Shouldn't they go for it, similar to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the USA which led to fewer casualties on both sides than an invasion?
I state it now: I don't think it is helpful in regards to ending this conflict to look at borders from 80 years ago. But as you opened up this book: Who did the land belong to before Israel declared independence?
You wrote to another person: "If you ask the question how Israel should be expected to tolerate being attacked, you should ask the same question back to Palestinians. How should Palestinians be expected to tolerate this war and all the other previous attacks from Israel?"
I simply have to ask you: Isn't all the aggression of invasion, rockets and attacks of civilians since decades coming out of Palestine first? When did Israel launch any attack or aggression at Palestine after not being provoked beforehand? Israel is always responding. Do you really think they would have attacked if October 7th never happened? Do you think any of the former aggressions by Israel were unfounded?
Palestine is the attacking side since decades... seriously don't you see this as an obvious fact? I am not saying that Israel is holy and nothing they do is wrong as there is plenty of evidence of their wrongdoings (as they are rightfully held more accountable as a parliamentary democracy than a terrorist regime as well as Moynihan's Law) but if there was partition plan on the table tomorrow it is obvious who would deny it and launch rockets simply because of hatred and anti-semitism. The Israelis don't give a fuck about this war. They are at peace with most countries that attacked them after independence.
@Cricketer12: You literally wrote "Multiple times, yes." quoting a paragraph that had two questions marks in it that could be addressed with yes/no. One was the question: "Or would you argue that Ukraine is occupying Crimea when they retake it in a couple of years from Russia as well? "
@Gahlo: I will simply quote myself when I answered before:
"So are there no other places in Gaza where Hamas could put up operating bases? It needs to be atop schools, Mosques and hospitals? Does all of Gaza consist only of important civilian infrastructure? Are there no other buildings that they could occupy, which would have greatly decreased the suffering and humanitarian emergencies in all of the fighting as well as lessened the casualty rates? Are you not aware that Hamas is blocking peace corridors? Shooting fleeing civilians? Raiding international aid? Misusing funds? This is their business. And every dead civilian is important to this cause.
Thus you might direct your question at fighters that were also batteling in densly populated areas without the tactics that Hamas deploys. "
Now that I have answered yours, I am happy to see you answer mine.
@Uldrige: Yeah, this genocide nonsense is completely ridiculous if you look at absolute numbers as well as soldier-civilian-dealth-ratios. People like Saif Ammous are proclaiming decade long genocide. That is one hell of a bad genocide with massive increases of the population that is being genocided.
@RenSC2: "In war, it is not the responsibility of the superior force to quit. It is the responsibility of the inferior force to surrender. Until the inferior force surrenders, the war will go on and many people will die. Hamas can end this war whenever they want by surrendering unconditionally."
THIS! The same held true for most of war times. The concept is far from being perfect, but in war everyone is fighting a just cause for their side. Why should a stronger force quit? Especially if that force is attacked over and over and over with the most barbaric methods?
MagicPowers implies that this would go against "With great power, comes great responsibility" which is nonsense. It is the responsibility of the leader of the inferior force to acknowledge defeat. It is the responsibility of the superior force to make acceptable terms for defeat (to avoid Versailles-consequences for example).
The problem comes into play if the superior force is immoral as Liquid'Drone said (although I have to say that the inverse-notion can but must not be true): Imagine a reversal of power and Israel needs to accept defeat. We probably all can see how that would end. Or if the Nazis would have won. They probably would never have made responsible terms for the Allies unless being forced to by factors like a revolting citizenship, resource shortage or pressure from their allies.
But does anyone in their right mind actually believe that an immoral superior force would act responsibly in this scenario? The whole idea that a superior force needs to be responsible is illogical, assuming the superior force is acting out of immoral goals, which ignore responsibility to begin with.
But yeah... trying to put the blame on Israel for pursuing the goal they set out from the beginning is absolute bogus. They were attacked and they will continue until Hamas surrenders at terms that are acceptable for Israel (mostly giving hostages back and handing over high ranking officers). They won't do it of course, but that blame is on Hamas, not Israel.
|
The entire qualm people have, Premo, is that Israel would not be a victor that upholds a moral framework. They claim that they would simply keep ethnically cleanse the Palestinians until all the Israeli goals are met.
@Nebu, @MP, @GH, @Gorsa: I'll think about these posts before getting back into the conversation. Appreciate the replies.
|
On August 16 2024 15:28 Uldridge wrote:
The entire qualm people have, Premo, is that Israel would not be a victor that upholds a moral framework. They claim that they would simply keep ethnically cleanse the Palestinians until all the Israeli goals are met.
@Nebu, @MP, @GH, @Gorsa: I'll think about these posts before getting back into the conversation. Appreciate the replies.
This is the part I don't understand.
Israel is upholding this very framework at the moment. Muslim Arabs penetrate Israeli society on all layers including the highest positions of power. There was a Muslim Arab judge who put a former Israeli PM behind bars. I mean.. how much more obvious does it have to be? In Israel everyone has equal rights and self-governance/autonomy hold true for neighboring regions that are literally occupied by a terrorist regime.
On top all the preventive measures I mentioned after October 7th. Yes, war crimes happen and Israel is doing evil stuff as well, but simply look at how they treat Arab Muslims in their country that are not straping bombs to themselves or launching rockets day and night.
|
On August 16 2024 14:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 09:48 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 07:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 16 2024 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 06:00 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2024 05:12 Uldridge wrote:
That does not make any sense.
Neither side can tolerate aggression, ergo Israel should stop. You're making a choice based on emotional attachment.
The correct answer is both sides should stop. If both sides can't stop, then both sides won't stop. This conflict maybe used to have been a forgiving tit for tat, but now it's devolved into a tit for tat ad infinitum. The trick is breaking out of the cycle. But blaming and condemning Israel for not doing so, is not the way to get there.
Note that I also find their civilian to Hamas ratios completely disproportional to the point of war crimes, but I don't have enough insight in the way Israel operates, nor can I say with confidence who actually reports things correctly so I wisely stay away from forming a polarized opinion. It makes perfect sense if you consider that the war has been taking place inside Gaza and not in Israel for the last ten months. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Israel has the power. In war, it is not the responsibility of the superior force to quit. It is the responsibility of the inferior force to surrender. Until the inferior force surrenders, the war will go on and many people will die. Hamas can end this war whenever they want by surrendering unconditionally. I hope that if you try to examine conflicts around the world throughout history through this very lens you just applied, you would realize that it's not a good lens to apply. Can you give an example of what you are trying to say? In WW2 I think the forces that tried to resist nazi or japanese imperialism (or soviet for that matter) and occupation were heroic and ultimately these local, inferior forces constitued an important part of the effort to combat nazism/fascism. I've rarely ever seen people argue that Finland was wrong to not immediately surrender in the winter war, but France has been subject to some critique in that conflict. More recently, you might argue that Ukraine fits the bill, although with the support they've been getting they might not be inferior. Basically how just a war effort is is most definitely not determined by how strong the armies are. If anything, there's an inverse relationship: an inferior army is only willing to fight a just war, while a superior army has fewer qualms with fighting a war with no moral justification.
Thanks, I was trying to understand what you were saying and this helps.
I was mostly focused on the responsibility of the superior force to quit to which I would say they have no responsibility. If the inferior forces want the war to end, then it's on them to surrender. They can save their people, but the superior force has no responsibility to do so. If the inferior force believes in their cause and are willing to sacrifice their lives for it, they're free to fight on. They can keep fighting until their people no longer exist if they so choose. That's their right, but I wouldn't recommend it.
The Palestinians believe in their own cause, Israel believes in theirs. So they fight and will keep fighting until one decides it isn't worth it anymore or one side no longer exists. It would be quite strange for the side that's winning to decide it isn't worth it.
Examples like the Finns in WW2 or current Ukrainians seem like good examples of people who are willing to sacrifice for what they see as a better future. I'd suggest that the Palestinian people would be much better off with IDF rule than Hamas rule, but that's for them to decide. Hard to get much worse than what is currently happening to them under Hamas rule.
@Magic Powers, you might want to examine the Peter Parker Principle and really think about it before you claim we should all follow it. Is it the responsibility of anyone with two dollars to give one to someone with none?
I'd say people have a responsibility to do no evil. However, doing good is not a responsibility. Living neutrally is a perfectly acceptable life. Nobody should praise you for it, but it's perfectly acceptable. If Spider-Man really exists, but he just decides to live a normal life, that's perfectly okay. It's not his fault that Uncle Ben died. It's the murderer's fault.
I'm not going to praise Israel as some bastion of morality. However, I will not condemn them for fighting a war with an opponent who wants a complete worldwide genocide of Jewish people. Once in a war, we should accept that war is awful and awful things happen in war. I'd prefer a more targeted war, but we aren't in a magical world where Israeli Supermen can fly in, bounce bullets off their chest and then grab the bad guys.
Unfortunately, we live in the real world where Israeli soldiers have to put their lives on the line and I'd never ask them to sacrifice themselves or even take small risks for their enemy's sake.
As a small aside, one area where I'd actually agree with possible sanctions against Israel is in relation to prisoner treatment. It's not part of the war. If the conditions are actually as bad as claimed and people are not held accountable internally, that would be worthy of sanction.
|
On August 16 2024 15:34 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 15:28 Uldridge wrote:
The entire qualm people have, Premo, is that Israel would not be a victor that upholds a moral framework. They claim that they would simply keep ethnically cleanse the Palestinians until all the Israeli goals are met.
@Nebu, @MP, @GH, @Gorsa: I'll think about these posts before getting back into the conversation. Appreciate the replies. This is the part I don't understand. Israel is upholding this very framework at the moment. Muslim Arabs penetrate Israeli society on all layers + Show Spoiler +including the highest positions of power. There was a Muslim Arab judge who put a former Israeli PM behind bars. I mean.. how much more obvious does it have to be? In Israel everyone has equal rights and self-governance/autonomy hold true for neighboring regions that are literally occupied by a terrorist regime.
On top all the preventive measures I mentioned after October 7th. Yes, war crimes happen and Israel is doing evil stuff as well, but simply look at how they treat Arab Muslims in their country that are not straping bombs to themselves or launching rockets day and night.
You know Israel's educational system is still segregated right?
This is from ~2001, but it pretty much all still applies.
The Israeli government operates two separate school systems, one for Jewish children and one for Palestinian Arab children. Discrimination against Palestinian Arab children colors every aspect of the two systems. Education Ministry authorities have acknowledged that the ministry spends less per student in the Arab system than in the Jewish school system. The majority's schools also receive additional state and state-sponsored private funding for school construction and special programs through other government agencies. The gap is enormous--on every criterion measured by Israeli authorities.
The disparities between the two systems examined in this report are identified in part through a review of official statistics. These findings are tested and complemented by the findings of Human Rights Watch's on-site visits to twenty-six schools in the two systems and our interviews with students, parents, teachers, administrators, and national education authorities.
Palestinian Arab children attend schools with larger classes and fewer teachers than do those in the Jewish school system, with some children having to travel long distances to reach the nearest school. Arab schools also contrast dramatically with the larger system in their frequent lack of basic learning facilities like libraries, computers, science laboratories, and even recreation space. In no Arab school did we see specialized facilities, such as film editing studios or theater rooms that we saw as a sign of excellence in some of the Jewish schools we visited. Palestinian Arab children with disabilities are particularly marginalized, with special education teachers and facilities often unavailable in the system, despite the highly developed special education programs of the Jewish school system.
www.hrw.org
|
Northern Ireland25497 Posts
On August 16 2024 16:06 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 14:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 16 2024 09:48 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 07:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 16 2024 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 06:00 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2024 05:12 Uldridge wrote:
That does not make any sense.
Neither side can tolerate aggression, ergo Israel should stop. You're making a choice based on emotional attachment.
The correct answer is both sides should stop. If both sides can't stop, then both sides won't stop. This conflict maybe used to have been a forgiving tit for tat, but now it's devolved into a tit for tat ad infinitum. The trick is breaking out of the cycle. But blaming and condemning Israel for not doing so, is not the way to get there.
Note that I also find their civilian to Hamas ratios completely disproportional to the point of war crimes, but I don't have enough insight in the way Israel operates, nor can I say with confidence who actually reports things correctly so I wisely stay away from forming a polarized opinion. It makes perfect sense if you consider that the war has been taking place inside Gaza and not in Israel for the last ten months. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Israel has the power. In war, it is not the responsibility of the superior force to quit. It is the responsibility of the inferior force to surrender. Until the inferior force surrenders, the war will go on and many people will die. Hamas can end this war whenever they want by surrendering unconditionally. I hope that if you try to examine conflicts around the world throughout history through this very lens you just applied, you would realize that it's not a good lens to apply. Can you give an example of what you are trying to say? In WW2 I think the forces that tried to resist nazi or japanese imperialism (or soviet for that matter) and occupation were heroic and ultimately these local, inferior forces constitued an important part of the effort to combat nazism/fascism. I've rarely ever seen people argue that Finland was wrong to not immediately surrender in the winter war, but France has been subject to some critique in that conflict. More recently, you might argue that Ukraine fits the bill, although with the support they've been getting they might not be inferior. Basically how just a war effort is is most definitely not determined by how strong the armies are. If anything, there's an inverse relationship: an inferior army is only willing to fight a just war, while a superior army has fewer qualms with fighting a war with no moral justification. Thanks, I was trying to understand what you were saying and this helps. I was mostly focused on the responsibility of the superior force to quit to which I would say they have no responsibility. If the inferior forces want the war to end, then it's on them to surrender. They can save their people, but the superior force has no responsibility to do so. If the inferior force believes in their cause and are willing to sacrifice their lives for it, they're free to fight on. They can keep fighting until their people no longer exist if they so choose. That's their right, but I wouldn't recommend it. The Palestinians believe in their own cause, Israel believes in theirs. So they fight and will keep fighting until one decides it isn't worth it anymore or one side no longer exists. It would be quite strange for the side that's winning to decide it isn't worth it. Examples like the Finns in WW2 or current Ukrainians seem like good examples of people who are willing to sacrifice for what they see as a better future. I'd suggest that the Palestinian people would be much better off with IDF rule than Hamas rule, but that's for them to decide. Hard to get much worse than what is currently happening to them under Hamas rule. @Magic Powers, you might want to examine the Peter Parker Principle and really think about it before you claim we should all follow it. Is it the responsibility of anyone with two dollars to give one to someone with none? I'd say people have a responsibility to do no evil. However, doing good is not a responsibility. Living neutrally is a perfectly acceptable life. Nobody should praise you for it, but it's perfectly acceptable. If Spider-Man really exists, but he just decides to live a normal life, that's perfectly okay. It's not his fault that Uncle Ben died. It's the murderer's fault. I'm not going to praise Israel as some bastion of morality. However, I will not condemn them for fighting a war with an opponent who wants a complete worldwide genocide of Jewish people. Once in a war, we should accept that war is awful and awful things happen in war. I'd prefer a more targeted war, but we aren't in a magical world where Israeli Supermen can fly in, bounce bullets off their chest and then grab the bad guys. Unfortunately, we live in the real world where Israeli soldiers have to put their lives on the line and I'd never ask them to sacrifice themselves or even take small risks for their enemy's sake. As a small aside, one area where I'd actually agree with possible sanctions against Israel is in relation to prisoner treatment. It's not part of the war. If the conditions are actually as bad as claimed and people are not held accountable internally, that would be worthy of sanction.
Reasonable points. If there’s a state that’s ever actively put its citizens in more danger in order to minimise collateral damage, I’ve yet to encounter it. I mean I still morally disagree with it all those other times too, but it’s not exactly exceptional behaviour from Israel either
As per the bolded, aye. War is an ugly thing and difficult to prosecute cleanly, I mean I’ll still be critical nonetheless, but it is. Plenty of Israel’s conduct outside of that is still rather heinous, and doesn’t have the same security justifications.
|
On August 16 2024 15:13 PremoBeats wrote:
@Nebuchad: Do you have any military experience? Just asking because you mentioned Lavender.
And as you implied occupation several times... In regards to the West Bank:
The WB was either Israeli territory after the declaration of independence according to uti possidetis juris.
Or it was occupied by Jordan who was no sovereign. If Jordan was never the sovereign to begin with, the land is not occupied. So why do you call this occupation by Israel? Or are you talking about a different region? Same question as to the other guy: Would you say Ukraine is occupying Crimea if they invade it and take it back from Russia in 15 years?
You also said that for Hamas to stop hurling rockets at Israel, Palestine's status would need to be recognized. At this point one could easily lose count on how many times the Palestinians were the ones denying partition plans, no?
@Acrofales: If the accusation of innocent Palestinians being used to explore potentially booby-trapped tunnels proves to be true, then everyone involved should be charged with war crimes (things like this will happen in a war and I am not denying them.. they are wrong and should not happen, but they will).
But do you deny the millions of calls, text messages, pamphlets as well as radio and TV transmissions Israel put out? Waiting weeks to attack which endangered their own soldiers with every passing day?
@Magic Powers: If ending the war is preventing casualties and a hypothetical goal of Israel is the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, which would result in the least amount of possible deaths in the future: Shouldn't they go for it, similar to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the USA which led to fewer casualties on both sides than an invasion?
I state it now: I don't think it is helpful in regards to ending this conflict to look at borders from 80 years ago. But as you opened up this book: Who did the land belong to before Israel declared independence?
You wrote to another person: "If you ask the question how Israel should be expected to tolerate being attacked, you should ask the same question back to Palestinians. How should Palestinians be expected to tolerate this war and all the other previous attacks from Israel?"
I simply have to ask you: Isn't all the aggression of invasion, rockets and attacks of civilians since decades coming out of Palestine first? When did Israel launch any attack or aggression at Palestine after not being provoked beforehand? Israel is always responding. Do you really think they would have attacked if October 7th never happened? Do you think any of the former aggressions by Israel were unfounded?
Palestine is the attacking side since decades... seriously don't you see this as an obvious fact? I am not saying that Israel is holy and nothing they do is wrong as there is plenty of evidence of their wrongdoings (as they are rightfully held more accountable as a parliamentary democracy than a terrorist regime as well as Moynihan's Law) but if there was partition plan on the table tomorrow it is obvious who would deny it and launch rockets simply because of hatred and anti-semitism. The Israelis don't give a fuck about this war. They are at peace with most countries that attacked them after independence.
@Cricketer12: You literally wrote "Multiple times, yes." quoting a paragraph that had two questions marks in it that could be addressed with yes/no. One was the question: "Or would you argue that Ukraine is occupying Crimea when they retake it in a couple of years from Russia as well? "
@Gahlo: I will simply quote myself when I answered before:
"So are there no other places in Gaza where Hamas could put up operating bases? It needs to be atop schools, Mosques and hospitals? Does all of Gaza consist only of important civilian infrastructure? Are there no other buildings that they could occupy, which would have greatly decreased the suffering and humanitarian emergencies in all of the fighting as well as lessened the casualty rates? Are you not aware that Hamas is blocking peace corridors? Shooting fleeing civilians? Raiding international aid? Misusing funds? This is their business. And every dead civilian is important to this cause.
Thus you might direct your question at fighters that were also batteling in densly populated areas without the tactics that Hamas deploys. "
Now that I have answered yours, I am happy to see you answer mine.
@Uldrige: Yeah, this genocide nonsense is completely ridiculous if you look at absolute numbers as well as soldier-civilian-dealth-ratios. People like Saif Ammous are proclaiming decade long genocide. That is one hell of a bad genocide with massive increases of the population that is being genocided.
@RenSC2: "In war, it is not the responsibility of the superior force to quit. It is the responsibility of the inferior force to surrender. Until the inferior force surrenders, the war will go on and many people will die. Hamas can end this war whenever they want by surrendering unconditionally."
THIS! The same held true for most of war times. The concept is far from being perfect, but in war everyone is fighting a just cause for their side. Why should a stronger force quit? Especially if that force is attacked over and over and over with the most barbaric methods?
MagicPowers implies that this would go against "With great power, comes great responsibility" which is nonsense. It is the responsibility of the leader of the inferior force to acknowledge defeat. It is the responsibility of the superior force to make acceptable terms for defeat (to avoid Versailles-consequences for example).
The problem comes into play if the superior force is immoral as Liquid'Drone said (although I have to say that the inverse-notion can but must not be true): Imagine a reversal of power and Israel needs to accept defeat. We probably all can see how that would end. Or if the Nazis would have won. They probably would never have made responsible terms for the Allies unless being forced to by factors like a revolting citizenship, resource shortage or pressure from their allies.
But does anyone in their right mind actually believe that an immoral superior force would act responsibly in this scenario? The whole idea that a superior force needs to be responsible is illogical, assuming the superior force is acting out of immoral goals, which ignore responsibility to begin with.
But yeah... trying to put the blame on Israel for pursuing the goal they set out from the beginning is absolute bogus. They were attacked and they will continue until Hamas surrenders at terms that are acceptable for Israel (mostly giving hostages back and handing over high ranking officers). They won't do it of course, but that blame is on Hamas, not Israel.
I see no point in arguing with someone who embraces "might makes right" and rejects "with great power comes great responsibility". I think I'll focus my efforts on people who are reasonable.
|
On August 16 2024 16:06 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 14:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 16 2024 09:48 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 07:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 16 2024 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 06:00 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2024 05:12 Uldridge wrote:
That does not make any sense.
Neither side can tolerate aggression, ergo Israel should stop. You're making a choice based on emotional attachment.
The correct answer is both sides should stop. If both sides can't stop, then both sides won't stop. This conflict maybe used to have been a forgiving tit for tat, but now it's devolved into a tit for tat ad infinitum. The trick is breaking out of the cycle. But blaming and condemning Israel for not doing so, is not the way to get there.
Note that I also find their civilian to Hamas ratios completely disproportional to the point of war crimes, but I don't have enough insight in the way Israel operates, nor can I say with confidence who actually reports things correctly so I wisely stay away from forming a polarized opinion. It makes perfect sense if you consider that the war has been taking place inside Gaza and not in Israel for the last ten months. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Israel has the power. In war, it is not the responsibility of the superior force to quit. It is the responsibility of the inferior force to surrender. Until the inferior force surrenders, the war will go on and many people will die. Hamas can end this war whenever they want by surrendering unconditionally. I hope that if you try to examine conflicts around the world throughout history through this very lens you just applied, you would realize that it's not a good lens to apply. Can you give an example of what you are trying to say? In WW2 I think the forces that tried to resist nazi or japanese imperialism (or soviet for that matter) and occupation were heroic and ultimately these local, inferior forces constitued an important part of the effort to combat nazism/fascism. I've rarely ever seen people argue that Finland was wrong to not immediately surrender in the winter war, but France has been subject to some critique in that conflict. More recently, you might argue that Ukraine fits the bill, although with the support they've been getting they might not be inferior. Basically how just a war effort is is most definitely not determined by how strong the armies are. If anything, there's an inverse relationship: an inferior army is only willing to fight a just war, while a superior army has fewer qualms with fighting a war with no moral justification. Thanks, I was trying to understand what you were saying and this helps. I was mostly focused on the responsibility of the superior force to quit to which I would say they have no responsibility. If the inferior forces want the war to end, then it's on them to surrender. They can save their people, but the superior force has no responsibility to do so. If the inferior force believes in their cause and are willing to sacrifice their lives for it, they're free to fight on. They can keep fighting until their people no longer exist if they so choose. That's their right, but I wouldn't recommend it. The Palestinians believe in their own cause, Israel believes in theirs. So they fight and will keep fighting until one decides it isn't worth it anymore or one side no longer exists. It would be quite strange for the side that's winning to decide it isn't worth it. Examples like the Finns in WW2 or current Ukrainians seem like good examples of people who are willing to sacrifice for what they see as a better future. I'd suggest that the Palestinian people would be much better off with IDF rule than Hamas rule, but that's for them to decide. Hard to get much worse than what is currently happening to them under Hamas rule. @Magic Powers, you might want to examine the Peter Parker Principle and really think about it before you claim we should all follow it. Is it the responsibility of anyone with two dollars to give one to someone with none? I'd say people have a responsibility to do no evil. However, doing good is not a responsibility. Living neutrally is a perfectly acceptable life. Nobody should praise you for it, but it's perfectly acceptable. If Spider-Man really exists, but he just decides to live a normal life, that's perfectly okay. It's not his fault that Uncle Ben died. It's the murderer's fault. I'm not going to praise Israel as some bastion of morality. However, I will not condemn them for fighting a war with an opponent who wants a complete worldwide genocide of Jewish people. Once in a war, we should accept that war is awful and awful things happen in war. I'd prefer a more targeted war, but we aren't in a magical world where Israeli Supermen can fly in, bounce bullets off their chest and then grab the bad guys. Unfortunately, we live in the real world where Israeli soldiers have to put their lives on the line and I'd never ask them to sacrifice themselves or even take small risks for their enemy's sake. As a small aside, one area where I'd actually agree with possible sanctions against Israel is in relation to prisoner treatment. It's not part of the war. If the conditions are actually as bad as claimed and people are not held accountable internally, that would be worthy of sanction.
Israel is doing evil, it's on them to end the war. It's on Hamas to not attack Israel again. As of this moment, Israel is committing the greatest evil because they're actively engaging in evil, whereas Hamas is obviously powerless to commit the evil that they would like to engage in.
|
On August 16 2024 18:38 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 16:06 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 14:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 16 2024 09:48 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 07:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 16 2024 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:On August 16 2024 06:00 Magic Powers wrote:On August 16 2024 05:12 Uldridge wrote:
That does not make any sense.
Neither side can tolerate aggression, ergo Israel should stop. You're making a choice based on emotional attachment.
The correct answer is both sides should stop. If both sides can't stop, then both sides won't stop. This conflict maybe used to have been a forgiving tit for tat, but now it's devolved into a tit for tat ad infinitum. The trick is breaking out of the cycle. But blaming and condemning Israel for not doing so, is not the way to get there.
Note that I also find their civilian to Hamas ratios completely disproportional to the point of war crimes, but I don't have enough insight in the way Israel operates, nor can I say with confidence who actually reports things correctly so I wisely stay away from forming a polarized opinion. It makes perfect sense if you consider that the war has been taking place inside Gaza and not in Israel for the last ten months. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Israel has the power. In war, it is not the responsibility of the superior force to quit. It is the responsibility of the inferior force to surrender. Until the inferior force surrenders, the war will go on and many people will die. Hamas can end this war whenever they want by surrendering unconditionally. I hope that if you try to examine conflicts around the world throughout history through this very lens you just applied, you would realize that it's not a good lens to apply. Can you give an example of what you are trying to say? In WW2 I think the forces that tried to resist nazi or japanese imperialism (or soviet for that matter) and occupation were heroic and ultimately these local, inferior forces constitued an important part of the effort to combat nazism/fascism. I've rarely ever seen people argue that Finland was wrong to not immediately surrender in the winter war, but France has been subject to some critique in that conflict. More recently, you might argue that Ukraine fits the bill, although with the support they've been getting they might not be inferior. Basically how just a war effort is is most definitely not determined by how strong the armies are. If anything, there's an inverse relationship: an inferior army is only willing to fight a just war, while a superior army has fewer qualms with fighting a war with no moral justification. Thanks, I was trying to understand what you were saying and this helps. I was mostly focused on the responsibility of the superior force to quit to which I would say they have no responsibility. If the inferior forces want the war to end, then it's on them to surrender. They can save their people, but the superior force has no responsibility to do so. If the inferior force believes in their cause and are willing to sacrifice their lives for it, they're free to fight on. They can keep fighting until their people no longer exist if they so choose. That's their right, but I wouldn't recommend it. The Palestinians believe in their own cause, Israel believes in theirs. So they fight and will keep fighting until one decides it isn't worth it anymore or one side no longer exists. It would be quite strange for the side that's winning to decide it isn't worth it. Examples like the Finns in WW2 or current Ukrainians seem like good examples of people who are willing to sacrifice for what they see as a better future. I'd suggest that the Palestinian people would be much better off with IDF rule than Hamas rule, but that's for them to decide. Hard to get much worse than what is currently happening to them under Hamas rule. @Magic Powers, you might want to examine the Peter Parker Principle and really think about it before you claim we should all follow it. Is it the responsibility of anyone with two dollars to give one to someone with none? I'd say people have a responsibility to do no evil. However, doing good is not a responsibility. Living neutrally is a perfectly acceptable life. Nobody should praise you for it, but it's perfectly acceptable. If Spider-Man really exists, but he just decides to live a normal life, that's perfectly okay. It's not his fault that Uncle Ben died. It's the murderer's fault. I'm not going to praise Israel as some bastion of morality. However, I will not condemn them for fighting a war with an opponent who wants a complete worldwide genocide of Jewish people. Once in a war, we should accept that war is awful and awful things happen in war. I'd prefer a more targeted war, but we aren't in a magical world where Israeli Supermen can fly in, bounce bullets off their chest and then grab the bad guys. Unfortunately, we live in the real world where Israeli soldiers have to put their lives on the line and I'd never ask them to sacrifice themselves or even take small risks for their enemy's sake. As a small aside, one area where I'd actually agree with possible sanctions against Israel is in relation to prisoner treatment. It's not part of the war. If the conditions are actually as bad as claimed and people are not held accountable internally, that would be worthy of sanction. Israel is doing evil, it's on them to end the war. It's on Hamas to not attack Israel again. As of this moment, Israel is committing the greatest evil because they're actively engaging in evil, whereas Hamas is obviously powerless to commit the evil that they would like to engage in.
Hamas right now is not the same as Hamas a month ago.
They have undergone an extremist takeover (if such a thing is even possible with Hamas) since Israel killed their political leader.
I would wager this is the exact outcome Israel wants.
Hamas won't ever agree to anything except the outright destruction of Israel while the new guys are in charge.
When I say 'new guys' I mean the guys who masterminded Oct 7th, who now run the political wing of Hamas.
Meanwhile in the West Bank Israeli extremists have torched a village, killing one innocent Palestinian. I'm sure they will continue to be protected for this kind of thing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c623zkwd04qo
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
