Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 4

On May 19 2021 16:36 Broetchenholer wrote:


If your stance is that giving Gaza to the Arabs was a failure, can you elaborate why? As far as i understand it, they simply changed a policed prison into a prison with no guards but tanks and machine guns on the outside, absolving themselves from any responsibility of what happens insight. Then they argued that as Hamas had now control over that zone, they didn't have to let any goods into that zone they did not want. Like cement. You know, something 2 million people definetly do not need. In what way do you believe the gaza strip could have become a success?

On May 19 2021 16:43 Magic Powers wrote:

Not the fault of "the Germans", but the fault of "Germany", i.e. the German leadership, which is the Nazis, Hitler being the head of it.


There's context missing from your question. Depending on whether or not Hamas has sent rocket strikes prior to Israel "blasting Gaza" as you put it, and depending on what targets Israel would choose in retaliation to those strikes, the answer that I'd give would change depending on that information.


Germany (not Germans, see my response to the first paragraph) had been waging an aggressive war against Britain and other countries, including the heavy bombardment of innocent and defenseless British towns that were not militarily relevant locations in order to kill and frustrate the population. Britain had no choice other than to retaliate with full force. What should else should Britain have done? Germany was committing war crime after war crime and conquering land after land, showing no regard for the lives of innocent people. Tell me what better options Britain had.

On May 19 2021 16:43 Magic Powers wrote:

Not the fault of "the Germans", but the fault of "Germany", i.e. the German leadership, which is the Nazis, Hitler being the head of it.


There's context missing from your question. Depending on whether or not Hamas has sent rocket strikes prior to Israel "blasting Gaza" as you put it, and depending on what targets Israel would choose in retaliation to those strikes, the answer that I'd give would change depending on that information.


Germany (not Germans, see my response to the first paragraph) had been waging an aggressive war against Britain and other countries, including the heavy bombardment of innocent and defenseless British towns that were not militarily relevant locations in order to kill and frustrate the population. Britain had no choice other than to retaliate with full force. What should else should Britain have done? Germany was committing war crime after war crime and conquering land after land, showing no regard for the lives of innocent people. Tell me what better options Britain had.

On May 19 2021 17:07 Magic Powers wrote:

I'll have to request citation for that.


I never agreed that Israel kills civilians, so I can't "go back to denying". I disagree with your framing of Israel's actions, you'll have to find a more convincing argument if you want me to change my mind.


It's not obvious to me how this pertains exactly to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Who is who in this scenario?


There's a difference between a matter-of-fact statement and one that describes the motives of the involved parties. If you're including the motive (retaliatory action against Hamas AND accepting civilian casualties), then Israel isn't dropping bombs on civilians. If you're talking matter-of-fact, then a jet dropped a bomb on people (which would have all the relevant information removed and would therefore not be honest).
The problem with the framing lies in the fact that every involved party has a backstory that does or doesn't relate to the matter-of-fact situation. If you're honest about the backstory, then you have to frame the act of bombing people in the right way. This means you have to include all relevant information about the involved parties, that are:
- The parties ordering and executing the bombing attack (the Israeli government/military)
- The parties receiving the bombing attack (Hamas on the one hand and civilians on the other hand)
This makes for three involved parties, not two. Leaving out Hamas from the framing should make it immediately obvious that it's a dishonest framing.
If you only included relevant information for one of the parties, or if you left out relevant information for one of the parties, then you'd be doing an incomplete framing of the situation.
The relevant information must also come in the correct order, because the Israeli military doesn't prioritize civilian targets and then accepts Hamas casualties as well, it goes the opposite way.
Therefore: "Israel is bombing Hamas AND Israel also accepts civilian casualties in the process"
If you say it like this, however: "Israel is bombing civilians", then you're leaving out that Hamas is the target and has priority, as without Hamas being the target Israel wouldn't have sent bombs that kill civilians.


I already gave sources, what more do you want? It's not a question that's definitively settled. I take the side that they do use human shields considering that they appear to be completely fine accepting civilian casualties as a direct and indirect result of their actions.

On May 19 2021 16:48 cLutZ wrote:



Gaza was, like I said, a trial for the 2 state (really always 3 state, see how the East/West Pakistan plan failed and now we have Pakistan + Bangladesh) wherein the Gaza was intended to slowly be given increased freedom and controls and evolve into a full country so long as it continually proved itself to not be an outsized terrorist threat. What happened, immediately, was the opposite. While the plan succeeded in reducing IDF casualties because they weren't sitting targets amid a hostile populace, they elected Hamas, and rocket activity was not reduced. This meant Israel couldn't justify lifting any of its blockade measures because Hamas would appropriate all relevant useful materials (like concrete) for its own means (which they still do).

Also, Israel, like any country has the right to defend a border. Its not correct to call a place a "prison" just because none of the neighboring states want to accept your citizens as immigrants or workers. Remember, Egypt has made the same exact call vis-a-vis the inhabitants of Gaza. Its not a unilateral Israeli choice, Egypt is always a theoretical option for Gazans (as is Jordan for the West Bank) but neither of those countries wants those people crossing the border either. For immigration, or transient work.

On May 19 2021 17:15 Magic Powers wrote:


Germany wasn't playing nice with Britain. They played very dirty by bombing innocent, defenseless civilians, and the war was close to being lost for Britain numerous times. Defeat would've meant absolute disaster for Britain and perhaps the world, as Hitler made no secret about his terrifying plans. And it wasn't just the Nazis, as Japan was a convenient ally of the Third Reich, and they weren't up to anything good either.
Germany was also coming dangerously close to attaining nuclear powers.
What Britain did to Germany in WW2 was a desperate attempt at saving humankind from a worse fate. They had to make decisions that went far beyond anything prior.
If you think this is even remotely comparable to the Israel-Hamas situation, then I'll have to end our debate.

On May 19 2021 17:20 Broetchenholer wrote:

First, Gaza is not a souvereign state. If it was, your argument might make more sense, but it's not. As they are not a souvereign state, Israel can treat them as their territory without anybody stopping them, so they control all trade routes into Gaza, be it via land or sea. If you set up an area to not be able to support themselves, they will not be able to support themselves. If you tell someone you will free them if they just behave and then keep treating them in a way that makes it impossible for them to behave, you cannot turn around and say "see, they were not able to behave". Now they are locked up forever. And sharing the blame with Egypt does not absolve israel from this.

On May 19 2021 17:15 Magic Powers wrote:


Germany wasn't playing nice with Britain. They played very dirty by bombing innocent, defenseless civilians, and the war was close to being lost for Britain numerous times. Defeat would've meant absolute disaster for Britain and perhaps the world, as Hitler made no secret about his terrifying plans. And it wasn't just the Nazis, as Japan was a convenient ally of the Third Reich, and they weren't up to anything good either.
Germany was also coming dangerously close to attaining nuclear powers.
What Britain did to Germany in WW2 was a desperate attempt at saving humankind from a worse fate. They had to make decisions that went far beyond anything prior.
If you think this is even remotely comparable to the Israel-Hamas situation, then I'll have to end our debate.

On May 19 2021 17:43 Magic Powers wrote:


I'm arguing Britain had a lot greater fears during WW2 than Israel in its conflict with Hamas. The Nazis turned Germany and all Germans (and other nations) into a single-minded war factory, every single citizen was involved in the war in some capacity, and those who weren't involved got exploited for the sake of war. There was nothing else. "Total war" is a term that stems from that time. "Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?" ("Do you want total war?") is in a speech from Goebbels after Germany had failed to conquer Russia numerous times.
Britain, knowing this, had to take very drastic actions. It's not even remotely comparable to anything today.
The bombing of Dresden is a hotly debated issue among historians, with some taking the stance that it was a war crime and others arguing that it had strategic relevance. I think they're both partially right, which means I think it's right to label the mission a war crime, and it's also right that - without needless attacks on civilians - it would've simply been essential to the British war efforts.
It needs to be said though that the British had faced an enemy who could've defeated them, who had conquered much of the world, who could've conquered much more of the world, an enemy who was terrifyingly brutal to civilians everywhere. With the prospect of losing a war to such an enemy, it can't be compared 1:1 to Hamas. At least Hamas is mainly using retaliation, as much as I or anyone else disagrees with their reasoning or methods. Germany wasn't retaliating.

On May 19 2021 17:24 Nebuchad wrote:
There is one cool thing about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and it's that the discourse has shifted dramatically. Last time this happened we had the discussion online and there were people making solid arguments on both sides, we had a little battle on the marketplace of ideas, and the people on the side of Palestine won that battle.

Which means that this time, support for Palestine is overwhelming in leftist places online. So, what can I say, when you're dealing with honest people who have a common goal, debate works, sort of. Leftist online places are set to raise more for Palestine than they did for Mermaids when Glinner decided to direct his constant transphobia at them. Especially Vaush has had a very successful stream, 250k+ in 24 hours.

Will charity solve the occupation, no it won't obviously. But it still signals that we have a pretty large voice, and that's cool. Other cracks start to form with larger protests all over the world, less pro-Israel propaganda in the media than usual (I have no explanation for that one but 1) hey, cool, I'll take it, and 2) there is still some dumb shit going around.

Imo one of the more important rhetorical battles to fight is the battle against the idea that it's complicated. One side has almost all of the power and chooses to oppress the other, openly using terrorism and openly supporting ethnic cleansing. Don't be on that side.