|
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 October 13 2023 21:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
So here we have Israel forcefully removing millions of Palestinians from Israel, meanwhile the EU a few months back imposed a Euro 20,000 per head fine on EU member states that refuse to host refugees.UK banning the showing of the Palestinian flag, France and Germany banning any 'Pro-Palestine' demonstrations.
All the above are contributing to Anti-Jewish sentiment in the west.Wouldn't be surprised to see more western Jews move to Israel, depending on how bad it gets.If you are a believer in the 'Greater Israel' project, it makes sense. aye I'm stupid, but I don't see how banning Palestinean flags or a fine for countries refusing refugees leads to anti-jewish sentiment. I'm sure it has something to do with illuminati and maybe a baby-eating cabal in a pizzeria basement, but you're going to have to explain the steps to get from banning Palestinean flags to more Jewish emigration to Israel for me as if I were a toddler.
|
I think anti-semites using this as an excuse is biggest factor in the rise in openly expressed anti-jewish sentiment tbh.
|
Since we're doing hypotheticals - if Israel had perfect intel and pre-emptively struck 2 weeks ago in just the right places to prevent the Hamas plot from being carried out, none of us would have been happy with that, I'd have thought "there goes Israel murdering again in the name of counter-terrorism". We couldn't have known that it was a best-case scenario without witnessing the alternative unfold (i.e. our reality). It's not like we could verify whether some notebook plans were real or made up.
|
On October 13 2023 16:47 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2023 15:42 maybenexttime wrote:On October 13 2023 08:38 WombaT wrote:On October 13 2023 08:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2023 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On October 13 2023 01:58 Nebuchad wrote:
The framing of "we have to let Israel defend itself" contains the idea that Palestinians aren't people. Meaning any time the number of enemies killed exceeds the number of allies saved, the choice is unethical? You're saying it is fundamentally dehumanizing for anyone to decide to kill more for the sake of saving less? 10 terrorists holding someone hostage, killing those 10 terrorists to save the hostage is unethical? The correct decision is to let the hostage die to save the lives of the terrorists? Notice how none of your questions have any connexion with defending yourself. When deciding if something is self-defense you don't look at how many innocents were killed and whether a quota was met or not, that's not what defending yourself means. In non-fucked up countries you can also kill someone who was actually in the process of attacking you and that death might still not be self-defense, but my understanding is that the US needs a little more time to think about this one. In the future there will be more attacks by Hamas, and Israeli children are going to die. We're feeling bad about this, because it is wrong for innocent civilians to suffer and die. They're humanized. Then, in an attempt to stop this from happening, we are supposed to be absolutely okay with Palestinian children dying (as long as it doesn't go above some number, apparently). Those deaths are not in a hypothetical future we're trying to avoid, those deaths are right now. But those deaths are acceptable. The only way for this to make sense is if some lives have more value than others, and this is why you require Palestinians to not be people in this framing. This is sadly a common view, and it's the view of everyone with political power in Europe and in the US at the moment. This is why every other statement from a politician in the last few days reads "The killing of civilians is never acceptable and that's why we must stand with Israel as it drops appartment blocks on children." The ones from the UK are particularly interesting because unlike US journalists, UK journalists sometimes ask questions to UK politicians, such as "What's up with the civilians in Gaza", and we get answers like the one from that ghoul Cleverly who basically gave the green light for genocide and then said he felt bad for the victims. Also had a french example that I find worth mentioning, France had a row of debate around the 40 decapitated babies that ended up probably not being 40 decapitated babies. So you can find a bunch of tweets like, "Are we really having a debate around which method is used to assassinate babies?", and that's viewed as disgusting behavior, it doesn't matter how the babies are killed. One of the people who spent a lot of time talking about the inhumanity of killing babies is Raphael Enthoven, a clown thinker for clowns. Enthoven also believes that there is a massive difference between collateral damage and Hamas' terrorism. So he and his ilk hold both that it doesn't matter how you kill babies (you monster how dare you), and that collateral damage, which given the demographics of Gaza is guaranteed to kill babies, is okay. It is important to understand that those two views are not contradicting each other, because you have to be a human to be a baby, and Palestinians are not. So in this framing Palestinians aren't people, but I wouldn't be doing my job correctly if I didn't also mention that the framing is wrong. Israel is not just trying to defend itself. Israel is trying to eliminate Palestine and take that land for itself. If you analyze the violence of the Israel Palestine conflict systemically, there is the constant violence of the status quo, with Israel doing settlements, killing the occasional Palestinian, closing their water sources, annexing their land, and the blockade of Gaza on top of that. That violence doesn't even make the news most of the time, cause to the rest of the world it's just the natural state of Israel/Palestine. Then sometimes Palestine decides to do something in response to that unjust order of things. In 2019 it was something peaceful, today it was something violent. Either way it was met with repression. So we have violence 1 by Israel, in response of which violence 2 by Palestinians happen, and then retaliatory violence 3, more violent than violence 1, by Israel again. Violence 2 will always serve as a justification for the war crimes of violence 3, and violence 1 will always serve as a justification for the war crimes of violence 2. But the playing field is slanted because the goal of Israel is violence 1 (as opposed to no violence) and violence 3 helps achieving that goal (by accelerating the rate of the elimination of Palestinians). This is why you can find Netanyahu talking to Likud about how Hamas is good for them because it ensures Palestine can never credibly form a state (or something to that effect, I can't be bothered to look up the exact quote), for example. You can say that to Likud but of course you're not allowed to say that internationally, so instead you talk only of violence 2 and 3, and Israel is just defending itself, and then the international debate is about whether Israel's self-defense is proportionate or not. The argument happens on a flawed basis. Excellent fucking post sir. I was ‘pleased’ to see Keir Starmer roundly condemn Hamas atrocity the other day, but refuse to condemn Israeli counter action, with a lovely swerve into ‘as long as they don’t commit war crimes’ Which apparently cutting off supplies to the Gaza Strip doesn’t count as, real inspiring stuff from the current Labour leadership. Thank god they’ve excised those ‘anti Semites’ eh? No, it's not an excellent post. It's a bad faith argument. There is a clear difference between targeting civilians deliberately and targeting terrorists while accepting there will be civilian casualties in the process. You may think it is inhumane but nowhere does this reasoning deny the fact that Palestinians are people. Sure, some collateral is tragic and a mistake that sometimes cannot be avoided. If your whole campaign is build on "and then innocent civilians are gonna die", it doesn't matter if you wanted them to die in the process or if you just did not care if they died. The differentiation is made all the time to conjure a difference between terrorism and stateactors antiterrorism, and everytime the response is way worse in civilians killed then the terrorism, not just in Israel. Also in the US or Saudi Arabia or you name it. And Hamas would looooove to hit military targets successfully, every IDF soldier they capture or kill is worth more to them. If you don't believe the bombing of Gaza is inhumane, what exactly is your bar for humane? Every time Russia does it (bombing civilian areas) it's a war crime, but Israel has a right to defend themselves.
Of course it does matter. The collateral damage doesn't happen in a vacuum. Hamas is doing as much as possible to endanger as many Palestinian civilians as they can. Right now they are persuading the residents of Gaza to not evacuate so that they can use them as human shields. If Hamas didn't try to get those people killed, very few of them would die. The reverse is not true. Hamas is deliberately trying to kill as many Israeli civilians as they realistically can.
And I also never said that the bombing of Gaza isn't inhumane. It's collective punishment. The siege itself is inhumane. They are effectively taking the population of Gaza hostage. Israel itself is acting closer to a terrorist organization than a state in that instance. Maybe it's naive, but I think Drone's idea of breaking the cycle of violence has a better chance of achieving some sort of long-term peace.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
First things first: this entire Palestine-Israel drama is a hell of a mess and i am rarely glad i was born in a uncivilised hellhole i was born in, even if it means walking by a handful of terrorist acts still.
Now onto the current day thing. The few things that need no doubt are following:
1) IDF does in fact have capability to glass Gaza.
2) It most likely won't use that capability given that they restricted themselves to mostly precision munitions still.
3) Hamas values deaths of Israeli residents far more than lives of the populace under it's control.
4) Gaza population overwhelmingly dislikes Israel. Some of that is valid grievances, some is plain brainwashing since childhood. I wonder if they are ever told who supplied them with all their living essentials.
Now, the hot take is here: never let an adversary kidnap you with your moral values.
With that said, i am going to empathise with people that never had a better option, but i won't consider Israel responsible for the mess that will come. The list of people at fault here is too long as is.
|
United States44113 Posts
As I said previously, they’re not alone in that.
Zionists and anti semites are agreed that the state of Israel and the Jewish people are one and the same. To the Zionists it means that any criticism of Israel makes you a Nazi. To the anti semites it means that any sin of Israel is proof of the Jewish problem. But they’re wholly agreed that nuance isn’t possible when it comes to Israel, it’s all or nothing.
It makes it very difficult for any public figure to state a balanced view as they’ll instantly be condemned by extremists on both sides. Both believe their causes will be helped by radicalization and escalation of the political rhetoric.
Incidentally I felt like the Irish Taoiseach did a good job of bridging Israel’s legitimate security concerns with the humanitarian reality of Gaza. Didn’t solve anything but it was a good statement.
|
Reports coming in that Palestinians that tried to go south as they were told were killed in the street by Israeli bombs.
|
Even the US is saying Israel's order to civilians to move South is not possible.
WASHINGTON, Oct 13 (Reuters) - Israel's call for more than 1 million civilians in northern Gaza to move within 24 hours is going to be a "tall order," although the United States was not second-guessing the decision, White House national security spokesman John Kirby said on Friday.
"That is a lot of people to move in a very short period of time," Kirby said in an interview on MSNBC.
"We understand what they're trying to do and why they're trying to do this -- to try to isolate the civilian population from Hamas, which is their real target," he added.
Kirby said U.S. officials are working with Israel and Egypt on getting safe passage for civilians living in Gaza, home to 2.3 million people in one of the most crowded places on Earth.
"Obviously, we don't want to see any civilians hurt," he said later on CNN. "We do support safe passage out of Gaza, and certainly that includes the ability for people to move safely inside Gaza.
"These Palestinian people, they're victims, too. They didn't ask for this. They didn't invite Hamas in and say, you know, 'Go hit Israel.'"
Kirby said he could not confirm Hamas' assertion that 13 captives were killed in Israeli strikes on Gaza in the last 24 hours.
Source
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On October 14 2023 01:13 KwarK wrote:
As I said previously, they’re not alone in that.
Zionists and anti semites are agreed that the state of Israel and the Jewish people are one and the same. To the Zionists it means that any criticism of Israel makes you a Nazi. To the anti semites it means that any sin of Israel is proof of the Jewish problem. But they’re wholly agreed that nuance isn’t possible when it comes to Israel, it’s all or nothing.
It makes it very difficult for any public figure to state a balanced view as they’ll instantly be condemned by extremists on both sides. Both believe their causes will be helped by radicalization and escalation of the political rhetoric.
Incidentally I felt like the Irish Taoiseach did a good job of bridging Israel’s legitimate security concerns with the humanitarian reality of Gaza. Didn’t solve anything but it was a good statement.
My Irish partner sent me that clip accompanied shortly after with a picture of a broken clock.
As Varadkar demonstrated, it very much is possible to give a serious statement that treads some kind of middle ground and remains true to a country’s ostensible values.
Meanwhile in the U.K. there’s very little of it from prominent politicians, especially disappointing from Labour given my general leanings, it seems post-Corbyn they’re terrified of not toeing the Israeli line.
And the Football Association is currently getting absolutely fucking hammered for the (IMO sensible) call not to light up the Wembley arch with Israeli colours for England’s upcoming game.
Like come on what kind of message does that send out?
|
On October 14 2023 01:10 maybenexttime wrote:
Maybe it's naive, but I think Drone's idea of breaking the cycle of violence has a better chance of achieving some sort of long-term peace. Of course it would have a better chance.
But Israel would probably say - sure, but they should stop their attacks first, then we'll stop retaliating, promise.
Hamas would probably say - no way in hell, we'll keeping attacking them until they give back all the land and go fook themselves.
So - while it sounds good, neither of two side would ever agree to be the one stopping it first.
|
Israel just bombed and killed a Reuters reporter as well as others from Al Jazeera. Also Israel has announced they will stop all internet traffic in Gaza tomorrow.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two.
Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world?
|
On October 14 2023 02:07 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two. Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world?
The Allies chose the Marshall Plan over the Morgenthau Plan after WW2.
|
United States44113 Posts
On October 14 2023 02:07 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two. Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world?
NK shells an island or shoots up a fishing boat from time to time. SK can choose between escalating in a competition where they’re bluffing and everyone knows they’re bluffing or standing down. They choose to stand down because it’s the least bad option.
Let’s say NK kill 100 SK civilians. SK strikes back and kills 1,000. NK kills 10,000. You’re the SK leader. You can either keep playing this game until Seoul is destroyed and the NK leadership are dead or you can give up.
You’re always going to give up because the destruction of Seoul isn’t victory, even if NK is also destroyed.
NK know you’re always going to give up first and so they can escalate each time without consequence. You know you’re always going to give up first.
The mistake was striking back and killing 1,000. All you achieved was getting another 10,000 of your own people killed.
|
United States44113 Posts
On October 14 2023 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 02:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two. Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world? The Allies chose the Marshall Plan over the Morgenthau Plan after WW2.
The Allies also ethnically cleansed Europe. It’s not talked about much but European populations used to be a lot more culturally mixed like we still see in the Balkans or Azerbaijan. As uniting German speakers within a single Reich was used as one of the arguments through the 30s it was judged as prudent to forcibly relocate millions of civilians in 1945 and 1946 to create homogeneous states.
It was a crime, and utterly pointless given the subsequent EU. Not bringing this up to disagree with anything you said and as a Pole I’m sure you’re aware of it. It’s just an interesting historical fact.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 14 2023 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 02:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two. Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world? The Allies chose the Marshall Plan over the Morgenthau Plan after WW2.
There was no cycle of violence to speak of in this case. There was violence and then there was a violent overwhelming response that cut it off. The plans in question are discussion of what to do after they cut the entire violence off.
On October 14 2023 02:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 02:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two. Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world? NK shells an island or shoots up a fishing boat from time to time. SK can choose between escalating in a competition where they’re bluffing and everyone knows they’re bluffing or standing down. They choose to stand down because it’s the least bad option. Let’s say NK kill 100 SK civilians. SK strikes back and kills 1,000. NK kills 10,000. You’re the SK leader. You can either keep playing this game until Seoul is destroyed and the NK leadership are dead or you can give up. You’re always going to give up because the destruction of Seoul isn’t victory, even if NK is also destroyed. NK know you’re always going to give up first and so they can escalate each time without consequence. You know you’re always going to give up first. The mistake was striking back and killing 1,000. All you achieved was getting another 10,000 of your own people killed.
I agree, killing 1000 is indeed a mistake that does not solve the problem. I won't write out the implication, but i will note that there is no cycle of violence to speak of in this case either. And if you ask me, waiting for the next 100 to die is not exactly an acceptable answer.
|
On October 14 2023 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:
The Allies chose the Marshall Plan over the Morgenthau Plan after WW2. Yeah, but to be fair Germany didn't keep attacking the Allies meanwhile.
The Allies made sure Germany is not dangerous at all anymore, Germany's military unconditionally surrendered, and entire Germany's government was changed - then the Allies helped rebuilding it.
They didn't suddenly stopped attacking Germany while Germany was still attacking them, hoping Germans will stop it too.
|
On October 14 2023 02:20 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:On October 14 2023 02:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two. Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world? The Allies chose the Marshall Plan over the Morgenthau Plan after WW2. There was no cycle of violence to speak of in this case. There was violence and then there was a violent overwhelming response that cut it off. The plans in question are discussion of what to do after they cut the entire violence off. Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 02:12 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2023 02:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two. Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world? NK shells an island or shoots up a fishing boat from time to time. SK can choose between escalating in a competition where they’re bluffing and everyone knows they’re bluffing or standing down. They choose to stand down because it’s the least bad option. Let’s say NK kill 100 SK civilians. SK strikes back and kills 1,000. NK kills 10,000. You’re the SK leader. You can either keep playing this game until Seoul is destroyed and the NK leadership are dead or you can give up. You’re always going to give up because the destruction of Seoul isn’t victory, even if NK is also destroyed. NK know you’re always going to give up first and so they can escalate each time without consequence. You know you’re always going to give up first. The mistake was striking back and killing 1,000. All you achieved was getting another 10,000 of your own people killed. I agree, killing 1000 is indeed a mistake that does not solve the problem. I won't write out the implication, but i will note that there is no cycle of violence to speak of in this case either. And if you ask me, waiting for the next 100 to die is not exactly an acceptable answer. Is it acceptable to commit genocide in order to save 100 citizens?
You can certainly make an argument that trying to minimize the damage an attack can do, and accepting that another 100 (or maybe less) die is the least bad outcome there is.
Because every other option seems to involve tens of thousands of dead Palestinians.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 14 2023 02:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 02:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 14 2023 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:On October 14 2023 02:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two. Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world? The Allies chose the Marshall Plan over the Morgenthau Plan after WW2. There was no cycle of violence to speak of in this case. There was violence and then there was a violent overwhelming response that cut it off. The plans in question are discussion of what to do after they cut the entire violence off. On October 14 2023 02:12 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2023 02:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two. Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world? NK shells an island or shoots up a fishing boat from time to time. SK can choose between escalating in a competition where they’re bluffing and everyone knows they’re bluffing or standing down. They choose to stand down because it’s the least bad option. Let’s say NK kill 100 SK civilians. SK strikes back and kills 1,000. NK kills 10,000. You’re the SK leader. You can either keep playing this game until Seoul is destroyed and the NK leadership are dead or you can give up. You’re always going to give up because the destruction of Seoul isn’t victory, even if NK is also destroyed. NK know you’re always going to give up first and so they can escalate each time without consequence. You know you’re always going to give up first. The mistake was striking back and killing 1,000. All you achieved was getting another 10,000 of your own people killed. I agree, killing 1000 is indeed a mistake that does not solve the problem. I won't write out the implication, but i will note that there is no cycle of violence to speak of in this case either. And if you ask me, waiting for the next 100 to die is not exactly an acceptable answer. Is it acceptable to commit genocide in order to save 100 citizens? You can certainly make an argument that trying to minimize the damage an attack can do, and accepting that another 100 (or maybe less) die is the least bad outcome there is. Because every other option seems to involve tens of thousands of dead Palestinians.
My argument is that "least bad" choice is guided by practical outcomes, not by ethical concerns. This might come across as really hateful, but make no mistake, it's not hate, just indifference: just like almost nobody in Russia ever cared about people that died in glassing Groznyi after what in hindsight was very sloppy false flag terrorism, very few people in Middle East, Israeli or Arabians will care if tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of Palestinians will die in process of cleaning up Hamas in case of hypothetical (?) ground operation. The question everyone there, ironically, would be concerned about are Israel's losses in process.
As for genocide question my question in return is: what is price would you be willing to pay to prevent genocide if you had opportunity to make decisions?
|
On October 14 2023 02:40 Gorsameth wrote:
You can certainly make an argument that trying to minimize the damage an attack can do, and accepting that another 100 (or maybe less) die is the least bad outcome there is. Unless Hamas attacks will become more frequent/massive when there's no retaliation to any of them.
Can we expect this to not be the case if Israel would stop violence from their side?
Of course we'll never know as Israel will not stop retaliating, but would you expect Hamas to stop attacks if Israel stops retaliating?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
