EPTThings Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 351
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
On October 11 2024 19:23 WombaT wrote: Aside from the rather crass ‘autistic screeching’ reference, what are peacekeepers there for in the first place? Man it’s awful convenient how there’s always some kind of bunker underneath whatever Israel targets. Bunkers under peacekeeping stations, really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Force_in_Lebanon | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10921 Posts
On October 11 2024 19:23 WombaT wrote: Aside from the rather crass ‘autistic screeching’ reference, what are peacekeepers there for in the first place? Man it’s awful convenient how there’s always some kind of bunker underneath whatever Israel targets. Bunkers under peacekeeping stations, really? The Peacekeepers somehow had no issues with Hesbollah constantly firing rockets at Israel so... Yeah, wtf are/were they doing there? Obviously it wasn't what they should have been doing. Even if they would have wanted to do something they most likely couldn't due to manpower and so on, but then... Why even still be there, outside of being another (human) shield for hesbollah? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On October 11 2024 17:15 KT_Elwood wrote: Totally agree. Israel shall anhihilate hamas and hezbollah and then offer occupation and reeducation and a fair chance. But for now, it's total war and nobody stops it. Gaza spent almost 20 years digging tunnels and making rockets from waterpipes. Israel has iron dome and GBUs. Reeducate the Untermenschen, they need saving from the master race. But first kill them. Your rhetoric resembles that of so many other historic fascists, it's incredible that you're completely incapable of noticing the overlap. Edit: just noticed Elwood is mocking people getting massacred... so this is it then, huh. We're devolving real fast around here. I know a few people who need reeducation, and it's not the Palestinians. It's the people cheering on Israel. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27200 Posts
On October 11 2024 20:04 Gahlo wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Force_in_Lebanon Rhetorical, but merci There’s a lot of concern in Irish military circles over the escalating situation. Not one of the world’s military powerhouses, but the Lebanon peacekeeping operation has been one of their consistently bigger deployments over the years. Would link a podcast I was listening to but tis paywalled. A current sitting Senator, military analyst and former serving soldier in said operation was on. I hadn’t previously realised most Irish casualties as part of the peacekeeping operation have come from Israeli fire, and not always inadvertently but being deliberately targeted by IDF forces. Israel/Irish relations being in the toilet also don’t help after Ireland took something of a lead in condemning the Gazan operation. Assuming he’s relaying the worries of others rather than giving his own personal opinions, I did find it somewhat interesting that their fear isn’t being caught in a crossfire or being collateral damage, it’s being actively targeted by the IDF | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10921 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27200 Posts
On October 11 2024 20:33 Velr wrote: The Peacekeepers somehow had no issues with Hesbollah constantly firing rockets at Israel so... Yeah, wtf are/were they doing there? Obviously it wasn't what they should have been doing. Even if they would have wanted to do something they most likely couldn't due to manpower and so on, but then... Why even still be there, outside of being another (human) shield for hesbollah? I think it’s certainly a general problem in that peacekeeping operations rarely get given the manpower and tools to actually do much impactful beyond merely observing in various deployments over the years. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On October 11 2024 20:52 Velr wrote: Yeah, we know. A certain type of leftist loves to "reeducate" people. I suggest building camps for it. I use the term ironically, if you haven't noticed. I'm not the one who started using it. The irony is going over your head. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9915 Posts
On October 11 2024 20:33 Velr wrote: The Peacekeepers somehow had no issues with Hesbollah constantly firing rockets at Israel so... Yeah, wtf are/were they doing there? Obviously it wasn't what they should have been doing. Even if they would have wanted to do something they most likely couldn't due to manpower and so on, but then... Why even still be there, outside of being another (human) shield for hesbollah? You are making some massive assumptions here, the biggest being that Hezbollah were anywhere near the peacekeepers to begin with. Obviously Israel will say they were, they say that every time they slaughter innocents, or aid workers, or basically any civilians, but it usually isn't true... Is there any evidence at all of Hezbollah activity near the peacekeepers that were attacked? | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27200 Posts
On October 11 2024 22:15 Salazarz wrote: Just standard IDF operating protocol. When they don't want someone in the area, they shoot them, then pretend they were all terrorists. And if not, they were helping terrorists. And if not, terrorists were hiding near and so they had no choice but to shoot anyway. It's how they bully all sorts of people away from the conflict -- they've been doing this with journalists, they've been doing it with aid workers, healthcare staff, etc. It's really nothing new. But Israel is a liberal democracy so it’s fine right? /s | ||
|
Byo
Canada212 Posts
How is this even going to end, or is this war, long term and a roundabout way answer to other wars. As it doesn't appear those other wars have much end in site either. | ||
|
pmp10
3397 Posts
As long as Iranian proxies are being eliminated (without middle east blowing up) the wider west will look past the methods. When it comes to US leverage it's clearly massive. Even if we put aside diplomatic protection and projected military power, this may turn out to be a long war and sustained munitions delivery will be critical for Israel. | ||
|
Byo
Canada212 Posts
Just not sure what is the response if Israel crosses a line, or if there is a line. And if no line, then how is any "reigning in" existing? Or is the reason for no line is that it's response to other wars, and that it's really in lock step to the people in power's view. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
On October 11 2024 22:52 Byo wrote: Humanitarian consideration and people dying aside, how far is Israel straying from what US sees as the proper course / allowable course. There has been some indication of sides not perfectly aligning iirc. Or do we all see this as "Jews good" "Jews need protection" any angry rampage regardless of costs is justified. How would any type of "reigning in" from the US look like? And how effective would it be? Would they just sit and watch if some nukes gets thrown around? How is this even going to end, or is this war, long term and a roundabout way answer to other wars. As it doesn't appear those other wars have much end in site either. I've seen reports that the US is incentivising targeting non-oil/nuclear sites in Iran if/when they attack. That's how bad things are. | ||
|
PremoBeats
561 Posts
On October 07 2024 16:30 pmp10 wrote: You are no fun. This was the point where you were supposed to show Israeli humanitarian data where there is absolutely no change to aid reaching Gaza whatsoever. And then I would counter with UN dataset showing that most Palestinians have starved to death already. That's the problem with high level politics, we will never be provided with data that contradicts the narrative. Your factoids are just more cherry-picked and context-less than most. Which data do you want to discuss? The endless excel sheets that were published? COGAT’s data? gaza-aid-data.gov.il? Do you want to go through all > 54000 shipments since October 21st separately? Or the data this paper gathered? https://biochem-food-nutrition.agri.huji.ac.il/arontroen/publications/nutritional-assessment-of-food-aid-delivered-to-gaza And as I don’t cherry-pick: Let’s not go with the data of Israel… let’s go with the data of the UN: https://www.ochaopt.org/data/crossings Or let’s even go with one of Israel’s biggest critics: UNRWA (by the way… all the data say mostly the same). It admits that in March 159 trucks entered Gaza. In major humanitarian envoys such trucks often deliver 40 tons of aid. 20 - 30 tons is a common average, so let's go with 20 tons per truck to be generous to your side. 159 trucks * 20 tons =3180 tons in total. Different sources cite between 60 - 80% food in the total amount of aid. 70% is the middle ground. 70% of 3180 are 2226 tons of food. 2.2 million people need about 2.2 kg of food daily. In tons that are 2200. Meaning if there were no food to be produced in Gaza, Hamas having no full warehouses with stolen humanitarian aid… there’d still be enough food for the Gazan population. BUT, there is more. I calculated with 1kg of food. A mixture of 1kg of humanitarian food provides approximately 3500 to 4000 calories. The caloric requirements per person per day in a crisis by the World Food Programme (WFP) is 2100 calories. Meaning, if we go - again, to be generous to your side - with 3500 calories per kg of humanitarian food, there is an excess of over 66% (very simple calculation but you get the point) Do you have any issues with these calculations? Or the provided data? Do you have data that is different from mine, as you said I cherry-picked? If no, then I ask you: Where does all that humanitarian aid vanish to? Because as I said multiple times: The providing side is not the issue, based on the numbers that are floating around by different sources. So it would be on you to 1. show different numbers if you disagree with them 2. explain where all the sufficient resources go to post-inspection, if they don’t end up with the civilians Magic Powers wrote: They've made plenty of statements. Things like this: "Right now, one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 1948." Or this: "We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed." They've also repeatedly stated that they have no plans for allowing an independent Palestinian state to exist, that they will continue to expand into and colonize West Bank, that they will reduce territory of Gaza as well. The first quote was made by Ariel Kallner directly in response to the most barbaric attack in recent decades against Israel. I’d cut him some slack, as long as it does not happen (actions speak louder than words etc...) The 2nd quote by Gallant (at least the food and fuel part) was put into effect the same day, he made the statement. And the blockade lasted until the 21st of October. Not an unreasonable reaction given the unprecedented and barbaric attacks Israel just suffered. But there never was an official statement by the Israeli government that outlines plans to permanently block the existence of an independent Palestinian state, colonize the West Bank or reduce Gaza's territory. Specifically in Gaza, Israel withdrew its settlers in a uni-lateral move in 2005 and since then no government policy aimed at reducing Gaza's territory further. Overall I think overall there are several realities about this conflict that are undeniable. 1. The creation of Israel was a foolish idea and a ridiculous injustice to the Palestinian people 2. The state of Israel exists 3. There are countries like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Algeria, Yemen and Libya as well as organizations such as the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, ISIS and Al-Qaeda that deny the existence of Israel 4. Most of the people living in Israel and Palestine currently were not even born before the Nakba (less than 2%, given the population explosion in the region) 5. Gaza - for differing reasons - is a dysfunctional society with generations that have been raised under an educational system that teaches them to hate Jews, deny Israel and highlights martyrdom. The West Bank also faces these issues to a certain extent, but with a growing middle class and less tensions, the bigger problem remains Gaza. 6. A two-state-solution is not possible with Gaza being governed by a terror organization that denies Israel's existence. The PA governing the West Bank accepts the existence of Israel 7. Israel is currently engaged in an active conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah due to these two organizations escalating the conflict in unprecedented fashion 8. Israel as a state has no interest in the continuation of this conflict (given that inner political actors might have reasons to continue the war) So a potential solution to this issue has to incorporate these points (assuming the hostages have been released at that stage): a. Israel's existence is accepted b. Gaza and the West Bank have to be fully functional states whose administration adhere to point a and do their utmost to break down and criminalize all efforts that deny point a. c. To achieve point b, in my opinion the biggest issues to deal with, after the ideological opposition to Israel's existence was resolved, are: - The right to return of refugees (which will and probably should be denied. If we look at this conflict and talk about the same issues in 200 years, the newer generations will have a state and homeland of Palestine in the Gaza and West Bank from today. Reparations should be paid though) - East Jerusalem (No idea how this dilemma could be resolved because of both sides claiming it as their capital as well as the religious sites being present for both parties) - Water rights - Security concerns for Israel - I include the de-settlement of the West Bank, although it is my opinion that Israel's biggest interest is peace and that this is one of the least important pieces of the puzzle. But as long as point a is not acquired, there is no moving forward. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
Yeah, you're clearly very reasonable and not biased at all. | ||
|
PremoBeats
561 Posts
On October 12 2024 17:32 Salazarz wrote: Israel's biggest interest is peace and so Israel occupying Palestinian territories and continuing to expand said occupation is one of the least important pieces of the puzzle. Yeah, you're clearly very reasonable and not biased at all. What about the uni-lateral move in 2005? If long-lasting peace is on the table, there is no doubt in my mind Israel would de-settle the West Bank too. And if not, the point of contention would simply be bigger in the relation I proclaimed. A very subtle correction if that is the only disagreement of yours in the whole text. From our last encounter, these are still unanswered by the way: What should Israel have done after October 7th? Even if the occupation ended, that is not where the goal of Hamas ends. Hence I think that focusing on the occupation is irrelevant. I never understood this argument... what do you think will happen when the occupation ends? Hamas will simply say "all good" and that's it? This back then was a potential solution I proposed: - De-Settlement of the complete West Bank by Israel, similar to the uni-lateral move in 2005 in Gaza - Complete de-militarization of Gaza and the West Bank - Acceptance by Gazan and West Bank authorities of Israel as a state (as we don't need another country denying its existence) - Supervision of Egypt in Gaza and Jordan in the West Bank in regards to terrorist threats inside the then proclaimed Palestine - Supervision of educational content by Egypt in Gaza and Jordan in the West Bank - Israeli financed and supervised infrastructural projects for schools, hospitals, electricity, water and sewage to show good will as well as to re-pay the historical debt of the Nakba | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
What about the uni-lateral move in 2005? What about it? Back in 2005, Israel's long-term occupation of Gaza was not feasible. Today, their long-term occupation of West Bank is a reality. If long-lasting peace is on the table, there is no doubt in my mind Israel would de-settle the West Bank too. Even though Israel's government keeps saying that two-state solution must be prevented, that West Bank settlements will continue to be expanded, and that long-lasting peace will basically only happen after Palestinians are gone? From our last encounter, these are still unanswered by the way: What should Israel have done after October 7th? That's a stupid question. October 7th didn't happen in a vacuum, it was not an 'unprovoked act of aggression' no matter what your favorite Israeli propagandists might tell you. October 7 was a reaction to decades of brutality and oppression. The only thing that changed after October 7 is that Israel finally got to experience what Palestinians were experiencing for many years. Unsurprisingly, they didn't like it very much -- but instead of reflecting on what they've been inflicting unto Palestinians and re-evaluating their policies, they simply doubled down on violence, as they always do. Because you know, after violence failed to bring peace and security for 50 years, the only possible conclusion is that they simply haven't been violent enough. Even if the occupation ended, that is not where the goal of Hamas ends. Hence I think that focusing on the occupation is irrelevant. I never understood this argument... what do you think will happen when the occupation ends? Hamas will simply say "all good" and that's it? Hamas was created as a response to the oppression of Palestinians. No, they're not going to disappear the instant Israel leaves Palestine alone, if that ever happens -- but Israel leaving Palestine alone is 100% a necessary first step for getting rid of Hamas or their equivalents. The idea that you can just kill a resistance movement into submission is ridiculous not to mention immoral. | ||
|
PremoBeats
561 Posts
On October 12 2024 18:07 Salazarz wrote: What about it? Back in 2005, Israel's long-term occupation of Gaza was not feasible. Today, their long-term occupation of West Bank is a reality. Even though Israel's government keeps saying that two-state solution must be prevented, that West Bank settlements will continue to be expanded, and that long-lasting peace will basically only happen after Palestinians are gone? That's a stupid question. October 7th didn't happen in a vacuum, it was not an 'unprovoked act of aggression' no matter what your favorite Israeli propagandists might tell you. October 7 was a reaction to decades of brutality and oppression. The only thing that changed after October 7 is that Israel finally got to experience what Palestinians were experiencing for many years. Unsurprisingly, they didn't like it very much -- but instead of reflecting on what they've been inflicting unto Palestinians and re-evaluating their policies, they simply doubled down on violence, as they always do. Because you know, after violence failed to bring peace and security for 50 years, the only possible conclusion is that they simply haven't been violent enough. Hamas was created as a response to the oppression of Palestinians. No, they're not going to disappear the instant Israel leaves Palestine alone, if that ever happens -- but Israel leaving Palestine alone is 100% a necessary first step for getting rid of Hamas or their equivalents. The idea that you can just kill a resistance movement into submission is ridiculous not to mention immoral. Israel saw what happened after they left Gaza and Hamas took over, hence they probably don't want to repeat the same mistake in the West Bank. That is exactly why Israel has the occupation in place. 2005 is the perfect example that slowly getting out of the region does not work. Do you think leaving Gaza completely alone, without any border-control or any other supervision would lead to less violence in the long run, when the outspoken goal of Hamas is the annihilation of Israel? When and how exactly did the Israeli government make these statements? Post 7th of October? Would that it be unreasonable according to you to say that a two-state-solution is off the table when the new state denies the existence of Israel and in barbaric fashion keeps attacking Israel? I never said that October 7th happened in a vacuum. I asked, what Israel or any sovereign nation should have done according to you when being faced with such an unprecedented attack in scale and barbarism. There was simply no need for Hamas and Hezbollah to escalate the conflict in such an insane and unnecessary fashion. Or are you saying that Hamas was justified in carrying out the attack the way it did, deliberately targeting Israeli and international civilians? Ok, there is our disagreement. You think leaving Palestinians alone is the first necessary step to get rid of Hamas, which I think is completely foolish and delusional. Their grip on power is too tight. Their backups through Iran are too powerful. Once Israel leaves Gaza open, the weapons will simply flow in like crazy. There are much more interests at play than those of the Palestinian people, which Hamas is completely ignoring anyway. Too much influence and money is involved to make your wishful thinking a reality. As soon as the "we fight because of oppression"-narrative is gone, it will switch to "Israeli land is Palestinian land and it needs to go". If you can't see this from the rhetoric of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest, there will be nothing to persuade you, I guess. I mean.. why do you think Gaza is worse off than the West Bank after nearly 20 years of Israel being gone? The issue is Hamas and the powers backing it up. No international help organization wants to deal with an actual terror group which is misusing aid and funds like crazy. The PA has security cooperations with Israel. It enforces crackdowns on Hamas and other extremist groups. The PA officially supports peace talks with Israel under Abbas. These are the first steps for Gaza too. And as soon as generation after generation, security risks go down, the re-education takes place and prosperity starts to manifest, a two-state-solution will be in reach, as terror groups will have it harder to gain support in a civilian population and interest groups that have actual things to lose. | ||
| ||
