EPTAwsome news if so
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 357
| 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. | ||
|
Kreuger
Sweden912 Posts
Awsome news if so | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
pmp10
3396 Posts
Politically this changes little as negotiations were stalled for a while and Hamas has likely fragmented long ago. And Israel has moved beyond Gaza anyway. | ||
|
Billyboy
1976 Posts
On October 18 2024 00:51 pmp10 wrote: I'm really surprised he didn't have a dozen hostages with him as human shields. Politically this changes little as negotiations were stalled for a while and Hamas has likely fragmented long ago. And Israel has moved beyond Gaza anyway. I think it was smart to travel non descript with just a couple of body guards. There is a lot of optimism about a ceasefire deal now being more possible. Sinwar was very much aligned with Iran and a hardliner. He is also the biggest prize for Netanyahu. so the thought is a more moderate member of Hamas an Netanyahu getting his big political victory might be enough to get it done. I'm still doubtful, not sure how many hostages are still alive and if Hamas is organized enough at this point to get them out or even have a voice that can make a deal for them. And Netanyahu is on a bit of a surge of popularity after some success with Hezbollah, but here is hoping something can get done. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9912 Posts
This is one down. This guy is a horrific individual. I've zero optimism about Israel stopping their psycho orgy of death and destruction any time soon though. | ||
|
riotjune
United States3394 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
What does Iran still stand to gain at this point? The world hegemony is always highly incentivized to allow bad behavior in pursuit of maintaining stability, but it’s not a blank check. And unlike Russia, Iran is not making gains in their pursuits. They are weakening rather than strengthening. Their objectives have never been further from reach. I am positive the west would leap at an opportunity for Iran to normalize relations with Israel if Iran cut off their proxies. As I’ve said before, nations will always advocate for their interests and act in accordance with their interests. I don’t “fault” Iran for continuing a holy war when they thought it was winnable. But once the ship sails, it’s time to reduce suffering. Unlike Hamas, no one would be calling for Iran’s government to be replaced. Even the leaders would all benefit from normalization. This whole thing is so stupid. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On October 18 2024 02:38 Mohdoo wrote: Nasrallah, Sinwar, and the US using a B2, the specific plane needed to wipe out Iranian nuclear facilities, on Houthis. What does Iran still stand to gain at this point? The world hegemony is always highly incentivized to allow bad behavior in pursuit of maintaining stability, but it’s not a blank check. And unlike Russia, Iran is not making gains in their pursuits. They are weakening rather than strengthening. Their objectives have never been further from reach. I am positive the west would leap at an opportunity for Iran to normalize relations with Israel if Iran cut off their proxies. As I’ve said before, nations will always advocate for their interests and act in accordance with their interests. I don’t “fault” Iran for continuing a holy war when they thought it was winnable. But once the ship sails, it’s time to reduce suffering. Unlike Hamas, no one would be calling for Iran’s government to be replaced. Even the leaders would all benefit from normalization. This whole thing is so stupid. The US has a history of pulling out of wars many years after they turn into infinite wars. That's what I think they're betting on. | ||
|
pmp10
3396 Posts
On October 18 2024 01:29 Billyboy wrote: There is a lot of optimism about a ceasefire deal now being more possible. Sinwar was very much aligned with Iran and a hardliner. He is also the biggest prize for Netanyahu. so the thought is a more moderate member of Hamas an Netanyahu getting his big political victory might be enough to get it done. I don't think there is anyone left to negotiate cease-fire with. I'm not even convinced Sinwar would be able to release hostages even if he wanted to. | ||
|
Billyboy
1976 Posts
On October 18 2024 03:05 pmp10 wrote: I don't think there is anyone left to negotiate cease-fire with. I'm not even convinced Sinwar would be able to release hostages even if he wanted to. Ya, I have no idea how they even communicate with each other, especially after how Hezbollah's got destroyed. The names being floated are Sinwar's brother, who is another hardliner. Khalil Al Hayya who was negotiating (and people see as the most likely to go for peace) and a guy named Khaled Meshaal, who would apparently be a shoe in except that he supported a Sunni uprising against Assad. So unless Hamas is willing to lose Iranian support, which seems highly unlikely, he is a no go. I'm guessing Mohammed Sinwar and the same things keep happening, but there is a glimmer now that didn't exist a couple of days ago so that is something I guess. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On October 18 2024 03:05 pmp10 wrote: I don't think there is anyone left to negotiate cease-fire with. I'm not even convinced Sinwar would be able to release hostages even if he wanted to. The reality is that the negotiation is really with Iran. None of this exists without Iranian support. That’s why the B2 was used in Yemen. Communicating to Iran “We will use these when we need to” was the only intention. That’s why I’m more focused on the big picture with Iran at this point. They really just don’t have any benefit in all this. | ||
|
pmp10
3396 Posts
And I don't think their influence on Gaza Hamas was that big even before the place was besieged. | ||
|
PremoBeats
557 Posts
On October 16 2024 19:12 Nebuchad wrote: Since I'm at work and I have nothing better to do I thought I'd compile some responses to this that you pretended not to get, so that they are in a single post and I can refer to it in the future if someone honest posts the same type of arguments. I'll write "Shoka" by Ado here so that I can search the post, also Ado is awesome go listen to her. - It is generally not a good idea to compare the casualties of an ongoing conflict to estimates of conflicts that have ended. A lot of dead people's deaths won't be reported while the war is still going on. The true number of casualties in Gaza is very likely to be much bigger than what is reported by the Hamas ministry: studies from Lancet (186000) or Brown University (121000) are indications of the numbers you may have to defend in the future. - In casualties of war, the number of men that are killed tends to be much larger than the number of women that are killed, which is explained by the fact that men partake in a lot of dangerous activities more than women do (fighting sure, but also looking for survivors and so on). The fact that at some points of the conflict women made up 50% of the reported deaths in Gaza requires an explanation. That explanation can either be that we are missing a large amount of dead people, or that Israel is bombing way more indiscriminantly than what happens traditionally. Or, you know, both, which is of course what is happening. - The number of women killed is also a problem when it comes to the civilian vs fighter casualty rate, as you would need to believe at the same time that Israel was so imprecise when it comes to killing women that it killed a way larger proportion of them than an average war does, but so precise when it comes to killing men that it killed a way smaller proportion of civilian men than an average war does. Again, this doesn't play, and the explanations overlap: almost all of the dead that are in the gap between the 40000 dead and the true number will be civilians, cause Israel has a good sense of the Hamas militants it kills, so some of those missing civilian men will be there, but also Israel, like every other party in a conflict ever, probably has a loose definition of what constitutes a terrorist, and will declare that many of the civilians it killed were fighters just because it makes their deaths easier to justify. - Again I'll urge you to ask yourself, what is a number of dead Palestinians that would make you consider the possibility that Israel isn't all you claim it to be? And if you can't find a good answer there, why do you reckon there's a relevance to the current number being, in your opinion, too low to care? If it was high, you wouldn't care either. IIRC I addressed all of the things you posted at one point or another, so no idea about your intro. Absolute number Instead of arguing with estimations that differ by themselves in more than what the disputed number so far is (60k difference between your two estimations as well as in total 3 times and 4.5 times the amount that is talked about atm), I rather talk about a more sensible possibility, even though that one still incorporates impossible data sets, which I pointed out several times and no one so far addressed. Generally, I agree though: the death count will probably need to be corrected upward after the fighting is finished. But as the overall idea of this first notion is similar to the last point you made I (once again) address it directly here as well: You cannot put a civilian death number on the justification for war. Let's say the number would be 5000. And now 5001 are killed. Does that make the war suddenly unjust or inhuman? I still stand by what I said before (good thing I can simply copy paste my old answers, as I addressed everything you put forth hurr durr): " What if 1 person more dies than what I say? Does the war become “inhuman” all of a sudden? What if Israel is way below an acceptable number that you propose? Is the war justified then? It doesn’t make sense, especially as we actually are able to observe how well Israel is doing in comparison to other regions. Further, the casualty numbers can increase through Hamas’ strategy to inflict a humanitarian crisis, thus the numbers can heavily be skewed. There is so much speaking against the mentioning of absolute or relative numbers that it is obvious how this is simply a gotcha-device you deploy to avoid talking about the numbers we already have. Why do you think there isn’t a clear cut answer to your question formulated by the international court of justice? Because each war is different and there are too many external factors one cannot account for. By all measurable methods, Israel is doing far better than any other faction that faced similar metrics." Rate of killed women and children The rate of women and children in Gaza that are killed is generally higher. Several factors contribute to this tragedy: - Youthful population (minors make up nearly 50%) - One of the highest birth rates in the world (more vulnerable people) - Presence in civilian spaces that are occupied and used by Hamas - Gaza being the most densely populated area out of all the ones I mentioned and probably the most densely populated war zone one is able to find (In Manila, which still had a lower density, 100k civilians were killed in less than a month for example) - Hamas and the Gazan government don't make distinctions between combatants - Enormous uncertainty persists regarding how many combatant fatalities go uncounted in tunnels and other battlespaces - A high proportion of reported deaths (around 17k) come from an unknown methodology that probably is misrepresenting the data ( https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/7168?disposition=inline - the link also supports the point you made about the death count probably rising after the dust settled) Some of these observations explain why the female count is higher: If you have a higher population of vulnerable kids - that have an equal sex ratio - that of course also affects the overall ratio of victims in relation to sex. Some of these factors even multiply, like Gaza having more vulnerable people, that are more in need of hospitals and safety zones, which become fighting areas because Hamas is hiding there and firing from within. Having one of them would already be bad... but they layer on top of each other, making the crisis and results even more disastrous. So considering all of that. I stand by what I said: That the IDF outperforms every other conflict heavily in the casualty rate is extremely commendable and even if the rate goes to a slightly lower point than similar conflicts (which it is far away from), the unique differences that Hamas deploys would make the IDF still good in this metric. But again: They outperform heavily so far. And don’t forget: It was Hamas and Hezbollah who escalated this conflict in barbaric and unnecessary fashion because they want Israel eradicated, not because they fight a just war for the Gazan population. Which exact time do you speak of with your 50%-notion by the way? I can't remember the complete time-line but iirc there was a spike in women and children deaths in overlap with these impossible data sets I mentioned. I agree though, that the terrorist-count by Israel likely is a little bit inflated. But so is the death count and the relation of women/children death to men killed by the MoH through impossible data sets. I think that the overall death count will be higher, but that the MoH underrepresented male fighters. Unanswered questions a. What should Israel have done after October 7th/8th? Nothing? Leave Hamas be and give every terrorist organization in the world a blueprint on how to avoid consequences by hiding behind civilians? Let it keep suppressing its population, exploit international aid and massacre civilians from time to time in Israel? Let it continue on its goal to eliminate Israel? Let Hezbollah keep on firing rockets nearly daily at Israel? b. If you seriously think that Israel deliberately kills Gazan civilians: Shouldn't the civilian soldier-to-civilian casualty rate be at least close to comparable conflicts and not much better? c. What do you think of my conclusion (the one I actually proposed several times, not the one you fabricated in your head and still didn't word out)? A small reminder: - De-Settlement of the complete West Bank by Israel, similar to the uni-lateral move in 2005 in Gaza - Complete demilitarization 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 - Other than these super-visions self-governance and autonomy (given that extremist groups that deny Israel’s existence are outlawed and engaging in such content is heavily punished) - 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 On October 16 2024 20:01 Magic Powers wrote: The argument is this: "Horrible atrocities were committed in other wars, too. That makes the current atrocities ok because we expect atrocities to be committed in war. Also, Hamas. Did I say Hamas yet?" No, it does not make them ok. It simply explains that war is bad and bad stuff happens in wars. No one here ever made the point to let Israel off the hook for war crimes, so stop this straw-maning nonsense. You don't think Hamas is responsible for this most recent, most unnecessary and most barbaric escalation of the conflict on its path to eradicate Israel? On October 17 2024 22:58 Magic Powers wrote: Research more, better and deeper and you can find the truth, too. I've put in the hours and my moral compass is working just fine, so I come to the conclusion that, no, not all war is equal. War can be fought with good ethics in mind, and war can be fought with brutality in mind. Israel has chosen brutality. It's not hard to see. Ah yes, you are the one who put in the hours and has the correct moral compass! Thank god, we have you around to show us the way. What would we do without such an highly-biased commentator who can't even handle criticism and being exposed to conflicting view-points and data, simply ignoring them? Lol. But please let us know, He-Who-Put-In-The-Hours: What should Israel have done according to your wisdom, truth and research? Ironic statement, when looking at how often you told people in this forum to get off their high-horse. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1161 Posts
On October 17 2024 22:58 Magic Powers wrote: Speak for yourself. I have no difficulty whatsoever determining which side(s) is/are in the wrong for which reasons. Your troubles stem from your own inadequacy. Research more, better and deeper and you can find the truth, too. I've put in the hours and my moral compass is working just fine, so I come to the conclusion that, no, not all war is equal. War can be fought with good ethics in mind, and war can be fought with brutality in mind. Israel has chosen brutality. It's not hard to see. I haven't said that it is impossible to philosophicly determine if a justification for war can be perceived as really just on a morale scale, but that war itself is always brutal and inhumane to those who experience it. The attempt to sort and weight inhumanities against each other.. is futile, since there is no effective authority but violence to end the other sides doing. Also you are kind of contradictory to your own statements. If israel had brutality in mind, they could have flatened gaza and beirut in about a day, claiming that every person on the ground is aiding the war against israel in some way and thereby becomes a legitimate target. Iranian proxys TRY VERY HARD to flatten israeli cities... yet fail to do so and resort to terror (like OCT 7th) and attacks on civilian ships. Is Israel now brutal because they are more competent? Because their civilians sit in shelters..and their soldiers go to war.. while iranian proxys send "the whole family" and if they don't come willingly.. you hire people like Simwar who "ethicly" motivate non compliant people.. or kill them. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12475 Posts
On October 18 2024 13:38 PremoBeats wrote: You cannot put a civilian death number on the justification for war. Let's say the number would be 5000. And now 5001 are killed. Does that make the war suddenly unjust or inhuman? Yes. On October 18 2024 13:38 PremoBeats wrote: Some of these observations explain why the female count is higher: If you have a higher population of vulnerable kids - that have an equal sex ratio - that of course also affects the overall ratio of victims in relation to sex. No it doesn't. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1161 Posts
1. Bullshit and you know it. 2. ![[image loading]](https://www.mena-watch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/hamas_camps-1-1024x583.jpg.webp) | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
If israel had brutality in mind, they could have flatened gaza and beirut in about a day, claiming that every person on the ground is aiding the war against israel in some way and thereby becomes a legitimate target. Just because they have the capability to do so doesn't mean they can realistically do it. If they did that, even the most idiotic Israel shills such as yourself would have to admit that their country is ran by a gang of fascists, and that would have actual repercussions for their state. So instead, they constantly test the limits of just how much ethnic cleansing and genociding is acceptable -- they've been doing it very successfully for a very long time. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
| ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1161 Posts
| ||
| ||
