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.
I believe we can agree that removing Hamas would be helpful if your goal is disarming hostile agents and removing threats to the State. It is demonstrable that Netanyahu has not prioritized this, he has in fact often propped up Hamas, and it has been reported that he is talking to Likud about how the existence of Hamas is helpful to those who have the goal of keeping Palestine (namely in the West Bank) from establishing a state.
.
So this leads to the final point in my logic chain. Hamas and their violence are demonstrably bad for the Palestinian cause (in addition to peace in general obviously). Israel cannot give a hostile enemy freedom of militarization and significant chunks of their small peace of land and expect to exist for any amount of time. (If you had any doubt that Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, etc would not complete absolute genocide if given an opening, Oct 7 should clarify that.)
If there are elements in Israel or elsewhere who don't want the conflict solved, they are the ones who profit from Hamas' violence. If Hamas stops attacking and becomes a reasonable partner in peace, more liberal parties will be elected in Israel and giving up land will be a more palatable suggestion for Israelis. And not just more palatable, more tenable, safe, and fair for all involved.
Israel could elect more liberal parties, or it could also not. This is a bit more convoluted but it circles back to Israel having agency.
No one questions whether Israel has agency. Their issue is they have no good options at the moment. If no one around them built their nation around the idea of killing Israelis, they would have options available that weren't all terrible.
The point I'm making is that no one seems to credit Gaza with having agency for some reason. And Gaza has a real clear cut good option in front of them right now. If the world just bothered pressuring Gaza to take their good option, it could actually solve the conflict.
But that's what I was answering. In the scenario that you have created to show that Gaza has agency, it is still Israel that has agency, not Gaza.
That's not true. At least not the way you seem to mean it. It is not reasonable or ethical to expect Israel to lower their defenses while there is a terrorist state in their backyard. They have currently have no reasonable options at all.
The way I seemed to mean it was: materially, in the real world. In the situation you describe, Gaza surrenders, and in the future, Israel has a vote and decides whether to elect people who will carry on the ongoing oppression of Palestinians or not. Gaza isn't part of that choice, so they're definitionally not the ones with agency even within the context of your hypothetical.
As a sidenote people didn't give Zerobyte good answers because there's an expectation that we come up with something serious, it's not really worth our time to say "What I would do if I was the prime minister of Israel is arrest myself for corruption and genocide attempt, then remove all the settlers from the West Bank and create a Palestinian state, with a UN force created especially dispatched here to enforce the borders". I don't think what you came up with was too serious a proposition either. I've engaged with it but at the core it reads more like a justification to me. Because Palestine isn't doing that thing that they're obviously not going to do, then what Israel is doing can be defended.
On October 10 2023 13:31 [Phantom] wrote: I really condem and despise Israel for the inhuman treatment of Palestinians, their displacement and murders. I really condem and despise Hamas for being radical terrorist pieces of shits wihout a single reediming quality.
And I condem and despise the idiots who thought it would be a good idea to create a new country and give it to the jews for no reason at all. Yeah yeah Jews suffered during ww2, big deal, everyone did, how do they deserve a country? If anything at least put them in a country that was taken over during ww2
Nobody really planned it. A bunch of people tried to stop it. There was a whole war over it. Then another. And a third.
To be honest, a lot of problems in the middle-east stem from the creation of all those artificial countries. Typically countries have borders along natural obstacles like rivers, mountains etc. If you look at the map of the region there are a lot of straight lines for borders there. This is a big part of why there are so many conflicts there, someone decided on arbitrary borders and you now have people from tribes that have been warring for centuries stuck in the same country or some people being split across two different countries all of a sudden. Couple this with authoritarian tendencies of both the old families that want to be feudal kings and religious zealots who also want a dictatorship and you have a big problem.
Slavery, genocide and other atrocities are common there.
I would actually love to see a study on 'relationship between how jagged/straight lined the borders of a country is' and 'how likely is this country to have been involved in wars/civil wars post ww2'.
On October 16 2023 08:19 Magic Powers wrote: The argument that Hamas isn't driven by religious fanaticism above all other motives is fairly new to me. I've never heard that claim before and I'd require something far more substantial than someone's opinion on the internet before I consider its validity.
Oh that definitely plays a part, at least for the foot soldiers. The people on top are definitely driven by money and power like most corrupt leaders though. The fact that they are all millionaires or billionaires should attest to that.
While there are Muslim religious scriptures that support some of their goals, they are clearly cherry picked from hundreds of other things and focused on for political reasons. If you look closely at those political reasons, they align coincidentally closely to situations that allow the Hamas leaders to get rich and/or stay in power.
In the meantime, if your concern is that you feel religious fanatics do not have free will, I can assure you as someone who has interacted with very religious people of multiple faiths, that all but the most devout will bend or even brake their rules if it goes too far against their self interest.
There are no better examples of the most devout than Hamas. Palestinians by and large are not like Hamas. Only Hamas and a few other extremist groups are like Hamas. They don't fall into regular person territory and therefore our rationale doesn't apply to them. For us, money matters. For Hamas, it doesn't. American presidents also tend to get very rich. That doesn't mean they're in it for the money, they do it for various other reasons first, and money is one of their secondary motives. Donald Trump even lost a lot of money during his presidency. Hamas leaders therefore cannot be assumed to be money driven. Power, yes. But religion first and foremost. The money ranks relatively low on their agenda, at least initially. They come into power because they're radical.
Hamas however does have a very reasonable, very ethical option available to them right now (free all captives and put all terrorists on trial). IF Hamas takes that option, THEN there will be new options for Israel that they don't currently have. Better options.
All that said, I'm confused and concerned that you are so reticent to "pressure Hamas to stop being violent." Is there even a downside to my proposal? Do you not believe that Hamas being less violent would be a good thing?
Hamas being violently anti-Israel led to Israel getting out of the Gaza strip entirely. West Bank is trying to play nice, as far as that's even possible given the situation, and they're getting colonized and regularly shot as their reward for it.
Now, I don't think violent terrorism and everything it entails is a good solution to Palestinian problems in the long run, but it's kind of moronic to ignore the context and insist that Hamas stopping being violent is the 'obviously correct choice.'
As for Israel having terrorist states and people trying to kill them around them... I mean, it's not like Arab states of Middle East have ever asked for a state of Israel to be formed where it is and for Jewish settlers to come live there? I'm pretty sure that if China had created a vehemently anti-American commune in the middle of California you wouldn't blame Americans for trying to drive them off, but somehow Israel is different?
Hamas however does have a very reasonable, very ethical option available to them right now (free all captives and put all terrorists on trial). IF Hamas takes that option, THEN there will be new options for Israel that they don't currently have. Better options.
All that said, I'm confused and concerned that you are so reticent to "pressure Hamas to stop being violent." Is there even a downside to my proposal? Do you not believe that Hamas being less violent would be a good thing?
Hamas being violently anti-Israel led to Israel getting out of the Gaza strip entirely. West Bank is trying to play nice, as far as that's even possible given the situation, and they're getting colonized and regularly shot as their reward for it.
Now, I don't think violent terrorism and everything it entails is a good solution to Palestinian problems in the long run, but it's kind of moronic to ignore the context and insist that Hamas stopping being violent is the 'obviously correct choice.'
As for Israel having terrorist states and people trying to kill them around them... I mean, it's not like Arab states of Middle East have ever asked for a state of Israel to be formed where it is and for Jewish settlers to come live there? I'm pretty sure that if China had created a vehemently anti-American commune in the middle of California you wouldn't blame Americans for trying to drive them off, but somehow Israel is different?
It's not moronic at all. Sure, there's a lot of feelings and history in play for both sides, but let's agree that, objectively, feelings should not be in the front seat in any conflict (At least not when judging it from out armchairs). If we look at status quo objectively, Israel has no good options to them as long as Hamas continues to exist. They leave them alone, Hamas continues to perform terrorist attacks, and more people die. They attack, and Hamas hiding behind civilians makes sure that more people die. Hamas, on the other hand, does have an objectively good option that will save civilian lives on both sides, which is to cease their terrorism.
Unless one of you can tell me an objectively good way Israel can handle this conflict, I'm not really interested in hearing about how bad they are, because they are literally caught in a position of no good outcomes.
Hamas however does have a very reasonable, very ethical option available to them right now (free all captives and put all terrorists on trial). IF Hamas takes that option, THEN there will be new options for Israel that they don't currently have. Better options.
All that said, I'm confused and concerned that you are so reticent to "pressure Hamas to stop being violent." Is there even a downside to my proposal? Do you not believe that Hamas being less violent would be a good thing?
Hamas being violently anti-Israel led to Israel getting out of the Gaza strip entirely. West Bank is trying to play nice, as far as that's even possible given the situation, and they're getting colonized and regularly shot as their reward for it.
Now, I don't think violent terrorism and everything it entails is a good solution to Palestinian problems in the long run, but it's kind of moronic to ignore the context and insist that Hamas stopping being violent is the 'obviously correct choice.'
As for Israel having terrorist states and people trying to kill them around them... I mean, it's not like Arab states of Middle East have ever asked for a state of Israel to be formed where it is and for Jewish settlers to come live there? I'm pretty sure that if China had created a vehemently anti-American commune in the middle of California you wouldn't blame Americans for trying to drive them off, but somehow Israel is different?
Maybe I am missing this, but what exactly is the issue with Israel's location being amongst all of the Arab states? What is the incentive for Israel to be somewhere else rather than the current location? Because Jerusalem has religious significance to Muslims?
Hamas however does have a very reasonable, very ethical option available to them right now (free all captives and put all terrorists on trial). IF Hamas takes that option, THEN there will be new options for Israel that they don't currently have. Better options.
All that said, I'm confused and concerned that you are so reticent to "pressure Hamas to stop being violent." Is there even a downside to my proposal? Do you not believe that Hamas being less violent would be a good thing?
Hamas being violently anti-Israel led to Israel getting out of the Gaza strip entirely. West Bank is trying to play nice, as far as that's even possible given the situation, and they're getting colonized and regularly shot as their reward for it.
Now, I don't think violent terrorism and everything it entails is a good solution to Palestinian problems in the long run, but it's kind of moronic to ignore the context and insist that Hamas stopping being violent is the 'obviously correct choice.'
As for Israel having terrorist states and people trying to kill them around them... I mean, it's not like Arab states of Middle East have ever asked for a state of Israel to be formed where it is and for Jewish settlers to come live there? I'm pretty sure that if China had created a vehemently anti-American commune in the middle of California you wouldn't blame Americans for trying to drive them off, but somehow Israel is different?
Maybe I am missing this, but what exactly is the issue with Israel's location being amongst all of the Arab states? What is the incentive for Israel to be somewhere else rather than the current location? Because Jerusalem has religious significance to Muslims?
Israel was founded as an exclusionary colonial project that displaced the existing population. They don’t want an Israel in their homes because of what it is. If I moved into your house and evicted you at gunpoint could you provide a religious justification for your need for me not to use your kitchen? Why must I sleep somewhere other than your bed while you sleep in the garage? What exactly is the issue?
Hamas however does have a very reasonable, very ethical option available to them right now (free all captives and put all terrorists on trial). IF Hamas takes that option, THEN there will be new options for Israel that they don't currently have. Better options.
All that said, I'm confused and concerned that you are so reticent to "pressure Hamas to stop being violent." Is there even a downside to my proposal? Do you not believe that Hamas being less violent would be a good thing?
Hamas being violently anti-Israel led to Israel getting out of the Gaza strip entirely. West Bank is trying to play nice, as far as that's even possible given the situation, and they're getting colonized and regularly shot as their reward for it.
Now, I don't think violent terrorism and everything it entails is a good solution to Palestinian problems in the long run, but it's kind of moronic to ignore the context and insist that Hamas stopping being violent is the 'obviously correct choice.'
As for Israel having terrorist states and people trying to kill them around them... I mean, it's not like Arab states of Middle East have ever asked for a state of Israel to be formed where it is and for Jewish settlers to come live there? I'm pretty sure that if China had created a vehemently anti-American commune in the middle of California you wouldn't blame Americans for trying to drive them off, but somehow Israel is different?
Maybe I am missing this, but what exactly is the issue with Israel's location being amongst all of the Arab states? What is the incentive for Israel to be somewhere else rather than the current location? Because Jerusalem has religious significance to Muslims?
Israel was founded as an exclusionary colonial project that displaced the existing population. They don’t want an Israel in their homes because of what it is. If I moved into your house and evicted you at gunpoint could you provide a religious justification for your need for me not to use your kitchen? Why must I sleep somewhere other than your bed while you sleep in the garage? What exactly is the issue?
I don't see the comparison is dissimilar to the formation of the US, Australia, and lots of other places where someone essentially said "Sorry bud, but this is my land at this point". If we are saying Israel has a moral imperative to return the land they took, then I am not understanding why the same does not apply to other nations that were formed by displacing the existing native population. Palestinians have plenty of reason to dislike Israelis because they've been at war with each other for a billion years. I view Palestinians as entirely justified in wanting to conduct violence against Israel because Israelis and Palestinians are very clearly at war and have been for a long time. The various appearances of ceasefire and whatever have all been mostly fake diplomacy and I don't think many people viewed the situation as long-term stable. It has been unresolved for a long time.
But I don't think it is reasonable to give neighboring countries a pass for hating Israel purely due to religious rivalries.
The big difference is how long ago it happened and how many original inhabitants remain compared to the colonizers. If the US was a native American region until 1947 and then it was decided that this region should go to the irish and it was split 50-50ish at first but then the past 60 years consisted of natives trying to kick them out but falling and the irish just grabbing more and more territory then I'm guessing a lot of people would find that quite outrageous.
I think we’re talking past each other. You asked for a specific religious reason for their objections. I don’t know why and I don’t see why the objection would need to be religious. It’s not a religious conflict, no more than Northern Ireland was. There may be a religious divide but that’s not what the core issue is.
Hamas however does have a very reasonable, very ethical option available to them right now (free all captives and put all terrorists on trial). IF Hamas takes that option, THEN there will be new options for Israel that they don't currently have. Better options.
All that said, I'm confused and concerned that you are so reticent to "pressure Hamas to stop being violent." Is there even a downside to my proposal? Do you not believe that Hamas being less violent would be a good thing?
Hamas being violently anti-Israel led to Israel getting out of the Gaza strip entirely. West Bank is trying to play nice, as far as that's even possible given the situation, and they're getting colonized and regularly shot as their reward for it.
Now, I don't think violent terrorism and everything it entails is a good solution to Palestinian problems in the long run, but it's kind of moronic to ignore the context and insist that Hamas stopping being violent is the 'obviously correct choice.'
As for Israel having terrorist states and people trying to kill them around them... I mean, it's not like Arab states of Middle East have ever asked for a state of Israel to be formed where it is and for Jewish settlers to come live there? I'm pretty sure that if China had created a vehemently anti-American commune in the middle of California you wouldn't blame Americans for trying to drive them off, but somehow Israel is different?
It's not moronic at all. Sure, there's a lot of feelings and history in play for both sides, but let's agree that, objectively, feelings should not be in the front seat in any conflict (At least not when judging it from out armchairs). If we look at status quo objectively, Israel has no good options to them as long as Hamas continues to exist. They leave them alone, Hamas continues to perform terrorist attacks, and more people die. They attack, and Hamas hiding behind civilians makes sure that more people die. Hamas, on the other hand, does have an objectively good option that will save civilian lives on both sides, which is to cease their terrorism.
Unless one of you can tell me an objectively good way Israel can handle this conflict, I'm not really interested in hearing about how bad they are, because they are literally caught in a position of no good outcomes.
You say Hamas has an objectively good option to cease their terrorism, and doing so would probably have prevented Israel from bombing Gaza but do you think the situation of the people there would actually improve without Hamas? would enclaves stop claiming more and more land? would they stop being evicted by force?
Without any sort of push back, futile tho it may seem, I think Israel would just keep pushing Palestinians out of what Israel sees as its territory.
Both sides are trapped in a cycle from which there seems to be no good exit.
Hamas however does have a very reasonable, very ethical option available to them right now (free all captives and put all terrorists on trial). IF Hamas takes that option, THEN there will be new options for Israel that they don't currently have. Better options.
All that said, I'm confused and concerned that you are so reticent to "pressure Hamas to stop being violent." Is there even a downside to my proposal? Do you not believe that Hamas being less violent would be a good thing?
Hamas being violently anti-Israel led to Israel getting out of the Gaza strip entirely. West Bank is trying to play nice, as far as that's even possible given the situation, and they're getting colonized and regularly shot as their reward for it.
Now, I don't think violent terrorism and everything it entails is a good solution to Palestinian problems in the long run, but it's kind of moronic to ignore the context and insist that Hamas stopping being violent is the 'obviously correct choice.'
As for Israel having terrorist states and people trying to kill them around them... I mean, it's not like Arab states of Middle East have ever asked for a state of Israel to be formed where it is and for Jewish settlers to come live there? I'm pretty sure that if China had created a vehemently anti-American commune in the middle of California you wouldn't blame Americans for trying to drive them off, but somehow Israel is different?
It's not moronic at all. Sure, there's a lot of feelings and history in play for both sides, but let's agree that, objectively, feelings should not be in the front seat in any conflict (At least not when judging it from out armchairs). If we look at status quo objectively, Israel has no good options to them as long as Hamas continues to exist. They leave them alone, Hamas continues to perform terrorist attacks, and more people die. They attack, and Hamas hiding behind civilians makes sure that more people die. Hamas, on the other hand, does have an objectively good option that will save civilian lives on both sides, which is to cease their terrorism.
Unless one of you can tell me an objectively good way Israel can handle this conflict, I'm not really interested in hearing about how bad they are, because they are literally caught in a position of no good outcomes.
You say Hamas has an objectively good option to cease their terrorism, and doing so would probably have prevented Israel from bombing Gaza but do you think the situation of the people there would actually improve without Hamas? would enclaves stop claiming more and more land? would they stop being evicted by force?
Without any sort of push back, futile tho it may seem, I think Israel would just keep pushing Palestinians out of what Israel sees as its territory.
Both sides are trapped in a cycle from which there seems to be no good exit.
Yes, Hamas does have one good option now. I'm not going to pretend to know whether Israel is going to continue to perform genocide or not if Hamas disbands, but they are the only ones with an actual option. If they disbanded tomorrow, then all focus could be moved on to Israel, as the ball would be in their court. But currently, their hands are completely tied, as long as Hamas exists. You can't both receive pity and simultaneously be the only reason your problems continue to exist.
If we look a little historically behind it, both Palestine and Israel have been tanking any negotiations attempt the last decade. However, Hamas is officially one of the core reasons why Israel isn't willing to negotiate atm. Can we take their word for it, and believe they will start negotiating if Hamas is gone? No idea. But we know for a certain they won't as long as the Palestine state continues to support them. We can't put blame on the idea that one part isn't going to be faithful, whilst the other part is actively making sure they don't even have a chance to do so
Hamas however does have a very reasonable, very ethical option available to them right now (free all captives and put all terrorists on trial). IF Hamas takes that option, THEN there will be new options for Israel that they don't currently have. Better options.
All that said, I'm confused and concerned that you are so reticent to "pressure Hamas to stop being violent." Is there even a downside to my proposal? Do you not believe that Hamas being less violent would be a good thing?
Hamas being violently anti-Israel led to Israel getting out of the Gaza strip entirely. West Bank is trying to play nice, as far as that's even possible given the situation, and they're getting colonized and regularly shot as their reward for it.
Now, I don't think violent terrorism and everything it entails is a good solution to Palestinian problems in the long run, but it's kind of moronic to ignore the context and insist that Hamas stopping being violent is the 'obviously correct choice.'
As for Israel having terrorist states and people trying to kill them around them... I mean, it's not like Arab states of Middle East have ever asked for a state of Israel to be formed where it is and for Jewish settlers to come live there? I'm pretty sure that if China had created a vehemently anti-American commune in the middle of California you wouldn't blame Americans for trying to drive them off, but somehow Israel is different?
Israel did not leave the Gaza Strip because of Hamas or terrorism. The retreat happened before they took over.
I don't see the relevance of what the other Arab countries wanted. All Israels neighbours except Egypt were under a British or French mandate in which they would gain independence eventually. Whatever happened in the Palestinian Mandate was not their concern. Your comparison with China creating a commune makes no sense. A Chinese commune would have ties and loyalty to China but the Jews had no home country. And contrary to what you're implying the early mainstream Zionists were not anti Arab. They wanted a majority Jewish state in Israel yes, but minorities would get full citizenship rights.
Hamas however does have a very reasonable, very ethical option available to them right now (free all captives and put all terrorists on trial). IF Hamas takes that option, THEN there will be new options for Israel that they don't currently have. Better options.
All that said, I'm confused and concerned that you are so reticent to "pressure Hamas to stop being violent." Is there even a downside to my proposal? Do you not believe that Hamas being less violent would be a good thing?
Hamas being violently anti-Israel led to Israel getting out of the Gaza strip entirely. West Bank is trying to play nice, as far as that's even possible given the situation, and they're getting colonized and regularly shot as their reward for it.
Now, I don't think violent terrorism and everything it entails is a good solution to Palestinian problems in the long run, but it's kind of moronic to ignore the context and insist that Hamas stopping being violent is the 'obviously correct choice.'
As for Israel having terrorist states and people trying to kill them around them... I mean, it's not like Arab states of Middle East have ever asked for a state of Israel to be formed where it is and for Jewish settlers to come live there? I'm pretty sure that if China had created a vehemently anti-American commune in the middle of California you wouldn't blame Americans for trying to drive them off, but somehow Israel is different?
It's not moronic at all. Sure, there's a lot of feelings and history in play for both sides, but let's agree that, objectively, feelings should not be in the front seat in any conflict (At least not when judging it from out armchairs). If we look at status quo objectively, Israel has no good options to them as long as Hamas continues to exist. They leave them alone, Hamas continues to perform terrorist attacks, and more people die. They attack, and Hamas hiding behind civilians makes sure that more people die. Hamas, on the other hand, does have an objectively good option that will save civilian lives on both sides, which is to cease their terrorism.
Unless one of you can tell me an objectively good way Israel can handle this conflict, I'm not really interested in hearing about how bad they are, because they are literally caught in a position of no good outcomes.
As I see it, he basically admits that there is an alternative way that could lead to actual establishment of a Palestinian state, and that is actually working things out with more moderate Palestinian factions from PLO in the West Bank (instead of slowly taking over the place) and at the same time mounting more pressure on HAMAS, so the difference in the level of living would be clearly seen between the two, and Palestinian people both in West Bank and in Gaza would be more supportive of PLO as their government. Which in turn could ease up on their anti-Semitism having a prospect of actually getting an internationally recognized state in return. That would require actual will from Israel to co-exist with Palestinians and recognize their right on the terrtiories within pre-1967 borders though.
Hamas however does have a very reasonable, very ethical option available to them right now (free all captives and put all terrorists on trial). IF Hamas takes that option, THEN there will be new options for Israel that they don't currently have. Better options.
All that said, I'm confused and concerned that you are so reticent to "pressure Hamas to stop being violent." Is there even a downside to my proposal? Do you not believe that Hamas being less violent would be a good thing?
Hamas being violently anti-Israel led to Israel getting out of the Gaza strip entirely. West Bank is trying to play nice, as far as that's even possible given the situation, and they're getting colonized and regularly shot as their reward for it.
Now, I don't think violent terrorism and everything it entails is a good solution to Palestinian problems in the long run, but it's kind of moronic to ignore the context and insist that Hamas stopping being violent is the 'obviously correct choice.'
As for Israel having terrorist states and people trying to kill them around them... I mean, it's not like Arab states of Middle East have ever asked for a state of Israel to be formed where it is and for Jewish settlers to come live there? I'm pretty sure that if China had created a vehemently anti-American commune in the middle of California you wouldn't blame Americans for trying to drive them off, but somehow Israel is different?
Israel did not leave the Gaza Strip because of Hamas or terrorism. The retreat happened before they took over.
I don't see the relevance of what the other Arab countries wanted. All Israels neighbours except Egypt were under a British or French mandate in which they would gain independence eventually. Whatever happened in the Palestinian Mandate was not their concern. Your comparison with China creating a commune makes no sense. A Chinese commune would have ties and loyalty to China but the Jews had no home country. And contrary to what you're implying the early mainstream Zionists were not anti Arab. They wanted a majority Jewish state in Israel yes, but minorities would get full citizenship rights.
That's true, but when Hamas took over they locked the door and threw away the key. It was quite convenient for right-wing Israelis that Hamas took control of Gaza, allowing them to claim they couldn't negotiate with the PA/PLO because they didn't speak for all of Palestine, and that they wouldn't negotiate with a radical terrorist organisation like Hamas. While Hamas was served as well, being "gifted" a base from where to radicalize thousands of Palestinians. Meanwhile the PA was impotent and couldn't do anything to stop Israel from slowly settling the West Bank. Any actual fight would play into Hamas's hand and Israel ignored any peaceful requests/demands.
I just want to sidebar a few important points before I respond to some of the posts here.
Genocide as defined by Wordnik: The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.
I say growth, because it has indeed grown. Quite a lot. Quite consistently.
There are really 2 possible explanations. Israel is hopelessly incompetent at committing genocide. OR they aren't trying to commit genocide and never have been.
As to the current conflict, Israel makes automated phone calls to residents of buildings before it bombs them so they can evacuate. Then they drop low yield roof knockers a few minutes before so residents have a last chance to flee if they ignored the phone calls. Then they destroy a building that is hopefully empty of inhabitants but usually full of Hamas rockets.
The results speak for themselves as well. As of early yesterday, Israel hit over 3,600 targets. Hamas published Palestinian death toll was only around 1,500. That's less than one death per target. Those are some incredibly empty buildings to destroy if your goal is genocide. Keep in mind that these are precision missiles, so they are hitting what they want when they want it. If they just wanted to kill people, they could have gotten those kills with about a dozen missiles instead of 3,600.
That’s a really bad argument. Kicking everyone off their land, erasing a state, putting them in a camp, and making the UN aid programs feed them does result in population growth but it is still ethnic cleansing. The follow up to creating a failed state also seems to include a lot of “they’re vermin” and “drive them into the sea” rhetoric which is not great.
You might as well argue that Hitler was helping the Jews because his actions helped create Israel. You can’t point to something like population in isolation and extrapolate back that Israel is really trying to help Palestine.
Their argument wasn't really that Israel is trying to help Palestine, the argument was that it's not quite genocide.
After all words have meanings, and I can agree that what Israel is doing doesn't qualify as genodice. Many other terms might apply - ethnic cleansing, open air prison, etc - but IMO not this one.
On October 17 2023 03:38 Cerebrate1 wrote: I just want to sidebar a few important points before I respond to some of the posts here.
Genocide as defined by Wordnik: The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.
I say growth, because it has indeed grown. Quite a lot. Quite consistently.
There are really 2 possible explanations. Israel is hopelessly incompetent at committing genocide. OR they aren't trying to commit genocide and never have been.
As to the current conflict, Israel makes automated phone calls to residents of buildings before it bombs them so they can evacuate. Then they drop low yield roof knockers a few minutes before so residents have a last chance to flee if they ignored the phone calls. Then they destroy a building that is hopefully empty of inhabitants but usually full of Hamas rockets.
The results speak for themselves as well. As of early yesterday, Israel hit over 3,600 targets. Hamas published Palestinian death toll was only around 1,500. That's less than one death per target. Those are some incredibly empty buildings to destroy if your goal is genocide. Keep in mind that these are precision missiles, so they are hitting what they want when they want it. If they just wanted to kill people, they could have gotten those kills with about a dozen missiles instead of 3,600.
So we are now applauding someone for not genociding? Strange. People here are claiming that after this attack, of course the only choice for Israel is to destroy hamas. So, what did Israel do before that attack? How did Israel try to solve the issue before it became impossible?
EPT
