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 05:12 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
Israel has also undergone an extremist takeover, that's why they're still fighting this pointless war. I can't stand this argument, it's bonkers to me. "They want to kill me, so I need to kill them and their family and their co-workers and complete strangers and raze the whole place to the ground". That's the exact same argument Hamas is using.
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
Israel has also undergone an extremist takeover, that's why they're still fighting this pointless war. I can't stand this argument, it's bonkers to me. "They want to kill me, so I need to kill them and their family and their co-workers and complete strangers and raze the whole place to the ground". That's the exact same argument Hamas is using.
I'm not really making an argument, just pointing something out to the thread that hasn't been mentioned (or at least I haven't read it here). Its useful information that adds to the discussion, and everything I said is true. I agree that Israel should stop the war. I'm just saying they aren't going to get any kind of agreement out of Hamas whatsoever.
On August 16 2024 15:13 PremoBeats wrote: 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.
No one cares, including you. This is extremely unimportant.
On August 16 2024 15:13 PremoBeats wrote: @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.
@GreenHorizons Yes, the unequal funding is rightfully the target of criticism. But having many schools teach in Arab and Hebrew simply would put an insane strain on educational costs. Bilingual schools exist (mainly Hand in Hand network) but are scarce. The problem became even greater as the Arab population has increased in relation to the Jewish population, having an ever larger percentage in already under-funded schools. Criticism here is perfectly fine. At this point I simply wonder if people acknowledge the things I mention as well
@Magic Powers Well, if you wouldn't intentionally misrepresent or misunderstand what I write, then perhaps my words wouldn't appear so unreasonable to you. Because I not once said or implied "might makes right". I further said that "with great power comes great responsibility" is an idiotic sentiment when thinking about a superior power having to dial back on war. I never rejected it. I even said how the inferior and superior side have different responsibilities: "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). " I gave further context that an immoral enemy won't give two shits about responsibility anyway, hence why I said it was an idiotic sentiment.
So yeah. You either are intellectually unable or unwilling to put up a good faith conversation. But if you are willing to, I will re-post my questions that so far have not been addressed.
@Jockmcplop Can you explain why Israel would want an even more extreme Hamas? From my estimation they will have enough on their hands with the Hizbollah coming from the north and Iran getting closer to nuclear weapons. I think it is much more natural to assume that Israel wants peace as fast as possible.
@Nebuchad No one cares? Unimportant? Although it came mostly from your side how all of this started before 7th of October? If not that, what did people mean? To when should we go back? I said it to another guy: I don't really care about this 80 year old history as it doesn't say anything about today, but I am not the one using loaded language like "occupied" which is rooted in the very thing that I asked you there. So either you are able to explain why you call it "occupied" or you should tell yourself that you simply parrot a position without understanding it. So far, these were not addressed either: 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?
@Gahlo As it seems you can't extract the information from the small text: "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?"
So yeah.. as I answered your question. What about the one above? Or those: Does all of Gaza consist only of important civilian infrastructure? Are you not aware that Hamas is blocking peace corridors? Shooting fleeing civilians? Raiding international aid? Misusing funds?
So as I said: Your question where Hamas should fight from if not civilian infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and religious sites, could be answered by fighters who also fight in densely populated areas without relying to such underhanded and civilian endangering and killing methods.
@Jockmcplop Can you explain why Israel would want an even more extreme Hamas? From my estimation they will have enough on their hands with the Hizbollah coming from the north and Iran getting closer to nuclear weapons. I think it is much more natural to assume that Israel wants peace as fast as possible.
Okay, put your bias aside for a minute and let's do this on the level. Israel hasn't shown any interest in peace. They want rid of Hamas completely, that is their stated aim - and you have defended this stance multiple times in the thread. We don't have to assume. They are telling us they don't want peace while carrying out an aggressive war. If Israel wanted peace they could leave Gaza and there would be more peace than if they stay there. Personally I don't think Hamas made any serious attempt at peace either. They could have returned all the hostages at the right moment 4-5 times and achieved a massive step towards peace if they had wanted to, but they didn't. We're really past that point now.
Why would Israel want an even more extreme Hamas? It gives them an excuse to prolong the war, which Netenyahu wants and so do their military leaders.
If its the case that Israel didn't want a more extreme Hamas, what did they think was going to happen when they took out Ismail Haniyeh?
Did they think Hamas were going to put a moderate in charge, or did they just not think that far ahead?
@Jockmcplop I meant overall peace, not peace right at this moment. As you said correctly, the stated aim is to eliminate Hamas. And the death of Haniyeh and other prominent figures would be included in Israel's goal, no?
But I get your point about Netanyahu and his internal power struggle totally and I can absolutely see this as a reason why peace negotiations could be delayed from Israel's side. My question was raised more from an overall perspective in the sense of Israel not having interest to keep this war up while having to fight on 3 sides. Their Iron Dome won't hold forever if things continue to escalate...
On August 16 2024 21:20 PremoBeats wrote: No one cares? Unimportant? Although it came mostly from your side how all of this started before 7th of October? If not that, what did people mean? To when should we go back? I said it to another guy: I don't really care about this 80 year old history as it doesn't say anything about today, but I am not the one using loaded language like "occupied" which is rooted in the very thing that I asked you there. So either you are able to explain why you call it "occupied" or you should tell yourself that you simply parrot a position without understanding it. So far, these were not addressed either: 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?
You're not being honest. So yes of course I can answer all these questions, they're stupid. But it won't change anything, as you don't care about the questions either.
Let's do it:
I am able to call it a military occupation because there is a reality, and in this reality we can see that there is a military there, and it is occupying the land. There are zero unbiased sources who will refuse to call it an occupation because, again, it is observable in reality. As Wikipedia says, "the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, has been under military occupation by Israel since 7 June 1967, when Israeli forces captured the territory, then ruled by Jordan, during the Six-Day War. The status of the West Bank as a militarily occupied territory has been affirmed by the International Court of Justice and, with the exception of East Jerusalem, by the Israeli Supreme Court."
Here's a powerful video describing the occupation:
So you see it isn't loaded to call an occupation an occupation. It doesn't even seem loaded to you, you're just acting in bad faith and doing some kind of rhetorical exercize to see if you can, using words, protect Israel from reality.
Would I say Ukraine is occupying Crimea if they invade it and take it back from Russia, well it would depend on whether they're militarily occupying Crimea or not after having taken it back from Russia. If they're occupying, then I would say they're occupying. If they aren't, then I wouldn't say it. Was that supposed to be hard?
"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?"
Even if that were true, which obviously it isn't, that wouldn't change my argument, so you're just arguing in a vacuum. Let's still take time to show that it isn't true: Israel has done its fair share to ensure that Palestine doesn't become a state, from creating so many settlements that it becomes harder to justify the UN accepted borders to demanding obviously unacceptable conditions, such as that the palestinian state can't have a military, to, even, making sure Hamas is as strong as possible so that Palestinians are divided between Fatah and Hamas and it's harder for them to unify. Israel is very clearly opposed to a Palestinian state and is doing everything it can to stop that from happening, so the dishonest portrayal of "Oh we tried to give them a state but they refused because they're evil Arabs" only works on people who already have your disposition towards the conflict.
I think we sometimes forget that netanyahu was having a power struggle even before the war, just because a regime wants something doesn't mean everyone in Israel wants it, or even the majority of Israelis does. With that said, I don't speak for them, but I have a feeling the voices so to speak may be skewed in someway due to how social media and media is. And I would imagine it to be a bit hard to not be on team Israel as an Israeli but I'm sure some do feel that way.
@Nebuchad As I said before, you parrot others. Since 1967 Israel is occupying the West Bank according to you. But how can it occupy an annexed territory which, before it was annexed by Jordan during its attack on Israel 1948-1949, was part of the state that is now occupying it? How can you occupy, which is already yours? Hence the Crimea question. Jordan never was the sovereign in the West Bank. The West Bank was inside the British Mandate which is why uti possidetis juris applies after the Arabs and Palestinian leadership rejected the UN partition plan, as it is the default rule in international law when a new state is declaring independence. Uti possidetis juris was introduced to promote stability, certainty and prevent struggles for territory. Which is exactly what isn't happening at the moment because the World leaders then and now fear to take Israel's side on this, although the Arabs were the ones rejecting the peaceful partition.
So you deny that... 1. The Peel Plan was accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs 2. UN Partition Plan was accepted by the Jewish Palestinians and rejected by the Arab Palestinians 3. UN plans after the first rejection were further rejected by the Arabs 4. Camp David was rejected by Arafat
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.
Ah yes. The two classifications of Arab Muslims. Suicide bomber and rightfully disenfranchised.
On August 16 2024 22:24 PremoBeats wrote: @Nebuchad As I said before, you parrot others. Since 1967 Israel is occupying the West Bank according to you. But how can it occupy an annexed territory which, before it was annexed by Jordan during its attack on Israel 1948-1949, was part of the state that is now occupying it? How can you occupy, which is already yours? Hence the Crimea question.
It's not "according to me", everyone calls it that. The reason why we call it that is because there is such a thing as material reality, and we can see that in material reality Palestinians live under israeli military occupation. You appear to find it very interesting that you can use words to pretend some alternative reality is happening, but I don't. Sorry.
@Nebuchad "Everyone calls it that" is the same as "everyone knows the earth is a disc" in 1500. No one I ever discussed this with could answer how it is an occupation. The material reality is that the West Bank was Israel's territory when Jordan annexed it. Now Israel is occupying the territory which was formerly its own? That does not make any sense. Israel is only accepting it out of International pressure and because it wanted to give the West Bank away anyways under the partition plan, which never came to be because of the Arabs rejecting it.
As you only answer what suits you: So you deny that... 1. The Peel Plan was accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs 2. UN Partition Plan was accepted by the Jewish Palestinians and rejected by the Arab Palestinians 3. UN plans after the first rejection were further rejected by the Arabs 4. Camp David was rejected by Arafat
@Cricketer12 Once you are able to reply with more than uninteresting one-liners, I am happy to take on another one, no worries
On August 16 2024 22:04 Byo wrote: I think we sometimes forget that netanyahu was having a power struggle even before the war, just because a regime wants something doesn't mean everyone in Israel wants it, or even the majority of Israelis does. With that said, I don't speak for them, but I have a feeling the voices so to speak may be skewed in someway due to how social media and media is. And I would imagine it to be a bit hard to not be on team Israel as an Israeli but I'm sure some do feel that way.
I imagine it’s what the post-9/11 thru Iraq war period was like, more in the States than in the UK, but on absolute steroids.
In such a febrile climate there’s that little extra pressure to get with the program and be a good patriot as it were. Of course, many will still resist that nonetheless
On August 16 2024 22:47 PremoBeats wrote: No one I ever discussed this with could answer how it is an occupation.
Well that would be because you're not an honest actor, so it's harder to answer in a way that would convince you.
For the rest of the world, we see that the place is ruled by a military that doesn't answer to the people who live there and is systemically oppressing the people who live there, so we call it a military occupation, because we're not weirdos.
On August 16 2024 22:04 Byo wrote: I think we sometimes forget that netanyahu was having a power struggle even before the war, just because a regime wants something doesn't mean everyone in Israel wants it, or even the majority of Israelis does. With that said, I don't speak for them, but I have a feeling the voices so to speak may be skewed in someway due to how social media and media is. And I would imagine it to be a bit hard to not be on team Israel as an Israeli but I'm sure some do feel that way.
There's also the authoritarian repression.
On November 02 2023 18:59 GreenHorizons wrote: Some video showing how even peaceful Jewish protesters are getting treated by Israel in Jerusalem.
On August 16 2024 21:20 PremoBeats wrote: @Gahlo As it seems you can't extract the information from the small text: "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?"
So yeah.. as I answered your question. What about the one above? Or those: Does all of Gaza consist only of important civilian infrastructure? Are you not aware that Hamas is blocking peace corridors? Shooting fleeing civilians? Raiding international aid? Misusing funds?
So as I said: Your question where Hamas should fight from if not civilian infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and religious sites, could be answered by fighters who also fight in densely populated areas without relying to such underhanded and civilian endangering and killing methods.
What other buildings? Homes? People there. Markets? People there. Are we to believe that there's oddles of run down factories that have been abandoned as globalization has destroyed local manufacturing? Societies don't tend to build buildings and then just leave them be unless it would be wasteful to use them - a luxury that Gaza in all likelyhood doesn't have.
As for everything else, of course I am aware of it. I'm not defending their actions beyond putting basic criticism to objections. In the same way that I'm not defending Israel's widening the permissible casualty projections with their AI target finder. Or them telling Gazans to go to designated safe spaces before bombing somewhere else, and then bombing that supposed safe space. Or how the IDF is blowing up aid workers that have co-ordinated with them. Or how international aid is repeatedly stopped at Israeli checkpoints and not allowed to pass. How they're deciding in high level meetings just how badly they're allowed to rape prisoners in their torture network. How the scores of bodies they've left behind are sometimes being tallied by fucking weight because they're so mangled they can't be properly counted.
Hamas is awful, but the way Israel is acting is abjectly abhorrent and I'm not towing their shit for them.
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
Not really. Sinwar is the one who makes the important decisions and leads Hamas in practice. This has been the case since before the war started. Haniyes death does not change much.
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
Not really. Sinwar is the one who makes the important decisions and leads Hamas in practice. This has been the case since before the war started. Haniyes death does not change much.
That seems to contradict most of the analyses I read around the assassination. Haniyeh was Hamas' main diplomat as well as an internal voice for moderation. Obviously the situation on the ground in Gaza was 100% Sinwar and his faction. But the political situation was considerably more complicated. Israel gave a big W to the radical faction. Given that Israel *wants* the situation to continue as is, it doesn't make an immediate difference. It blew up any realistic chance at a ceasefire. Unsurprisingly Netanyahu gives 0 shits about that. Him.and the even scarier nationalist partners in his government want nothing more than to flatten Gaza, and everybody in it.
EPT
