Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 489

On October 22 2025 12:31 mindjames wrote:
(Which - sidenote - is my gripe with much of the discussion around this conflict. Things can be bad enough to warrant inquiries and indictments without being the most extreme and uncharitable things people can think of. Unfortunately extreme statements garner most of the attention.)

On October 22 2025 16:20 mindjames wrote:
@Arcofales
I'm happy to respond to you the moment you revisit the first sentence of your reply and consider whether that is a charitable reading of my post.
If not, no worries.

On October 22 2025 16:20 mindjames wrote:
@Arcofales
I'm happy to respond to you the moment you revisit the first sentence of your reply and consider whether that is a charitable reading of my post.
If not, no worries.

The fact that this aid disruption came during a ceasefire, plus the calculated aid rationing - leads me to believe that, at least in the case of this specific enforcement, it was not used as a weapon of war, but rather to pressure Hamas and make them cave to the Israeli extension offer.

On October 22 2025 17:04 Nebuchad wrote:


The same issue arises here as happens naturally whenever someone makes this comment. In a worldview in which it is extreme and uncharitable to talk about the policies of Israel in extreme terms, how do we explain that a plurality of the people who are most connected to the topic, whether through expertise or experience, are ready to use those extreme terms?

On October 22 2025 21:12 Acrofales wrote:

Maybe. But then you'd have to explain this, to me meaningless distinction:



Why do you think there is a difference between "using it as a weapon of war" and using it as "leverage to obtain your desired outcome". To me there is no difference. If you control the entire supply of food to the civilian population and are using that supply to leverage the governing body, you are committing a war crime.

On October 22 2025 21:53 mindjames wrote:

Your overall point is fair, I'll just make a quick clarification: I am not saying it's by-default uncharitable to talk about Israel in extreme terms; I am calling some of the terms being thrown around "extreme" simply because I am not convinced they are warranted.

But yes, I do have to consider the possibility that I just don't understand the issue well enough, don't have all the information, and that I am, in the end, a layman - and am better off deferring to expert/academic consensus.

However, politics and political science are not physics, and they are not medicine. Over the years, and particularly since Oct. 7th, I've read reports and analyses by so many organizations and individuals that have strong credentials and/or reputations in this field - that contain so many basic errors, misrepresentations, and leaps of logic - that I've come to think this specific conflict is too "hot" to have a lukewarm opinion on, and there's probably too many incentives and too much pressure involved to ever get a completely unbiased high-profile assessment.

Still, I try not to be blackpilled. There probably are some very knowledgeable people out there who have written convincingly about the topic in a way that might differ from my current understanding. The problem is, I am one guy with one set of eyes. I could never hope to find these more nuanced assessments when public discussion is full of hyperbole, so the only thing I can do is adopt a heuristic that efficiently sifts through the various opinions and talking heads.

I'm not oblivious to the possibility that I could be self-deluded due to how close I am to the issue. But I hope at least that I've shown enough openness and good faith engagement, given how far I've gone to recognize wrongdoing on the part of Israel, among other things.

On October 22 2025 12:31 mindjames wrote:
Why?
1. Because providing aid costs resources that could've otherwise gone into said war objectives.
2. Because feeding a population that a moment ago celebrated Oct 7th is not a popular idea among average joes who don't understand international law around blockades (and doubly so among rightwingers). I.e. political nightmare.
3. Because by providing for the Gazan population, you are essentially lifting that responsibility from Hamas; not to mention, feeding Hamas.

The fact that this aid disruption came during a ceasefire, plus the calculated aid rationing - leads me to believe that, at least in the case of this specific enforcement, it was not used as a weapon of war, but rather to pressure Hamas and make them cave to the Israeli extension offer.

On October 22 2025 13:00 mindjames wrote:
I will also say, for the sake of my time and yours. I am not looking to converse with anyone who straight up supports Hamas in any way, ever; thinks leadership on both sides is morally comparable; or thinks that October 7th was in any way justified. If you claim to care about international law, I expect you to recognize that Hamas does not - and I expect you to vehemently oppose Hamas' conduct in every step of the way.

I am willing to discuss what I believe the current government of Israel is, and has been, doing in opposition to my moral stances and with regards to international law. What I am less excited about is conceding wrongdoing in good faith when the other side is simply being partisan, opportunistic and unprincipled.

I hope we are on the same page on that. You seem nice but I've been wrong before.

On October 22 2025 21:53 mindjames wrote:

Your overall point is fair, I'll just make a quick clarification: I am not saying it's by-default uncharitable to talk about Israel in extreme terms; I am calling some of the terms being thrown around "extreme" simply because I am not convinced they are warranted.

But yes, I do have to consider the possibility that I just don't understand the issue well enough, don't have all the information, and that I am, in the end, a layman - and am better off deferring to expert/academic consensus.

However, politics and political science are not physics, and they are not medicine. Over the years, and particularly since Oct. 7th, I've read reports and analyses by so many organizations and individuals that have strong credentials and/or reputations in this field - that contain so many basic errors, misrepresentations, and leaps of logic - that I've come to think this specific conflict is too "hot" to have a lukewarm opinion on, and there's probably too many incentives and too much pressure involved to ever get a completely unbiased high-profile assessment.

Still, I try not to be blackpilled. There probably are some very knowledgeable people out there who have written convincingly about the topic in a way that might differ from my current understanding. The problem is, I am one guy with one set of eyes. I could never hope to find these more nuanced assessments when public discussion is full of hyperbole, so the only thing I can do is adopt a heuristic that efficiently sifts through the various opinions and talking heads.

I'm not oblivious to the possibility that I could be self-deluded due to how close I am to the issue. But I hope at least that I've shown enough openness and good faith engagement, given how far I've gone to recognize wrongdoing on the part of Israel, among other things.

On October 22 2025 22:02 PremoBeats wrote:

As someone who has been attacked a shit-ton lot by the Anti-Israel-gang here for my views, I'd really like to hear about your opinion in regards to the complete blockade in terms of it being a war crime or not. Is it your position that enough food was stored up, so Israel knew/took the chance that the civilian population was not truly in danger?

On October 22 2025 22:37 mindjames wrote:

That is my current understanding. When reading up about on-the-ground sentiment during this time (still speaking about March-April), I mostly see mentions of a looming danger and prices of food going up in the strip. By the time aid was resumed, it was in GHF's hands, and in my understanding - that's where things got really bad.

So if anything, I believe you could hold Israeli leadership accountable for their reckless disregard for the hunger situation in Gaza while the GHF was quite clearly failing at its mission. They even had a couple of months of grace because they were supposedly learning on the fly. But that doesn't cut it when so much human life is at stake.

Would that be a war crime? I tend to think so. But the crime would probably not be "starvation as a weapon of war". As you mentioned in your reply to Arcofales, intent matters. What I see is hubris and irresponsible disregard for the performance of GHF.

On October 22 2025 22:14 Jankisa wrote:


1. What kind of resources? The aid is from what I know being provided by humanitarian organizations. There were the same organizations that were banned by Israel from doing it because Israel perceived them as "supporting Hamas". If you are referring to inspecting the food coming in and securing the deliveries, that's just something that every military does, I mean Russians are pretty fucked up, but over the last 4 years there were 0 stories of them starving civilians, it's not that hard.
2. This, to me, is a horrific way to make a point. I don't care if people who have been oppressed and bombed on for decades celebrated what was, to them, presented as a great victory, and I definately don't think that gives the other side card blanche or an excuse to do whatever they want, especially not because it's a "political nightmare"...
3. How is Hamas supposed to feed them if there is a land, sea and air blocade instituted by Israel? How is, as the rules of war say, doing that instead of the surrounded side "lifting that responsibility from Hamas"?

Up until this point, I could agree and understand your stance, but these are not rational points.

Moving on.



I don't get how do you not see that this sentence has no internal logical consistency? The aid disruption came from the side of Israel as a tool for negotiations. Just because there was a ceasefire that doesn't mean that the war was over. So, the lack of aid going in to Gaza was used as a way to achieve war goals. To put it in other, more blatant words, Israel was trying to put pressure on Hamas by starving civilians.



You can look up my previous posts in this thread. I'm sure you would find things that are objectionable, but I'm very far from a Hamas supporter, I did, however, over the 2 year period go from tepid approval of Israel going in and attacking Hamas (because I knew it's going to enact a heavy toll on the civilian population), to being on the fence and then not being on the fence on calling what is happening first an attempt at Ethnic cleansing and then Genocide, as more facts came in.

To me, Israel's leadership, especially the far right parts are absolutely morally equivalent to Hamas. They have no respect for international law, just like Hamas doesn't. They don't discriminate between civilians and combatants, just like Hamas does not. Ben Gvir is a convicted terrorist and many elements of the current government made genocidal statements on par with what Hamas leadership has been saying, including in their original chapter.

October 7th is not justified, there is no moral equivalent to an event like that from Israel's side.

The starvation and famine in Gaza is not justified, there is no pressure tactic that comes at the cost of starving women and small children that I will ever be able to justify and still think of myself as a moral person.

On October 22 2025 23:26 WombaT wrote:

Who put GHF in that position in the first place?

A comparable amount of civilians have died at GHF administered aid points than died on October 7th at this stage. Still, to my knowledge lower, but not far off, and ever-increasing.

Who also doesn’t let other orgs do this, to stick GHF in the first place? Who also doesn’t let foreign journalists in to catalogue how it’s all working?

The more factors that point in a pretty damning direction, the more that implies intent. Especially given the lack of real corrective measures, and indeed at times doubling down.

If I was doing my best to be humane, had all sorts of complexity making my job tough, with sometimes tragic outcomes I’d actively welcome outsider eyes so I could show that was the case. But it’s basically omertà outside of pre-vetted fluff.

If we were talking some civil war in Africa or w/e and x despot leader was instituting these kind of policies and implementation of said policies, I somewhat doubt the benefit of the doubt would be extended.

On October 22 2025 23:26 WombaT wrote:

Who put GHF in that position in the first place?

A comparable amount of civilians have died at GHF administered aid points than died on October 7th at this stage. Still, to my knowledge lower, but not far off, and ever-increasing.

Who also doesn’t let other orgs do this, to stick GHF in the first place? Who also doesn’t let foreign journalists in to catalogue how it’s all working?

The more factors that point in a pretty damning direction, the more that implies intent. Especially given the lack of real corrective measures, and indeed at times doubling down.

If I was doing my best to be humane, had all sorts of complexity making my job tough, with sometimes tragic outcomes I’d actively welcome outsider eyes so I could show that was the case. But it’s basically omertà outside of pre-vetted fluff.

If we were talking some civil war in Africa or w/e and x despot leader was instituting these kind of policies and implementation of said policies, I somewhat doubt the benefit of the doubt would be extended.

On October 23 2025 00:00 Nebuchad wrote:


Fwiw, one of the arguments that had the most impact in the field of genocide studies was simply the fact that an international court found that there was enough likelihood of Israel committing genocide to warrant investigating it, and Israel didn't change course in any way.

On October 23 2025 00:11 mindjames wrote:


This is actually a common misconception about the court's "plausibility" assessment. The court, as explained by the former chief judge (in my recollection), said "plausibility" in this context does not imply that Israel is "plausibly committing a genocide". That part is said very clearly. The explanation of what it actually means is a bit lawyery and I don't know if I fully understand it, but it's something like - Palestinians plausibly have a claim to seek protection as a group from the crime of genocide, and thus the case gets to proceed beyond deliberations on subject matter jurisdiction, or another type of initial stage.

If you're curious, I believe there is an interview on YouTube with her where she clarifies this. If you're really curious I'll look it up.

On October 23 2025 00:16 Nebuchad wrote:


I already understand this, and I would wager that the experts who were moved by this argument do as well.

On October 23 2025 00:24 mindjames wrote:


That may be the case, but then, let's not present things as serious as ICC/ICJ judgements as something they are not.

The statement:
"an international court found that there was enough likelihood of Israel committing genocide to warrant investigating it"

...is incorrect, even if you think it's a genocide. I hope we can agree on that.

On October 22 2025 23:40 mindjames wrote:


I'm not sure where this is coming from. You are beating at an open door.

I don't think I've ever brought up GHF as a way to absolve Israel's conduct. In the very post you quoted I specifically said it could be considered a war crime to have kept GHF around despite the lackluster and deadly results.

And I also never claimed Israel is "doing its best to be humane", in fact I clearly laid out why I think Israel is attempting to satisfy the bare minimum under IHL. Whether you agree with that or not, I am quite clearly not saying what you are attributing to me.

On October 23 2025 00:00 Nebuchad wrote:


Fwiw, one of the arguments that had the most impact in the field of genocide studies was simply the fact that an international court found that there was enough likelihood of Israel committing genocide to warrant investigating it, and Israel didn't change course in any way. Which is attractive to me in that it's a very simple point. If you're very opposed to genocide, as any normal person is, and a court tells you that you might be committing one, wouldn't that give you pause? Getting ahead of the "biased international court" argument that will follow, before that court gave that ruling nobody was arguing as if it was a done deal, almost the opposite in fact people on my side were already providing some justifications as to why the court should might side with Israel.

I must confess that specifically for me I find all of this a bit tedious because intent isn't solely implied, a bunch of people in the Netanyahu government are regularly quoted about how they will destroy Gaza and remove all Gazans, Netanyahu himself has the whole Riviera stuff with Trump and has a quote from literal decades ago about what the best way to take palestinian land from Palestinians is. They're not very subtle about it at all.

On October 23 2025 00:22 Jankisa wrote:
Well, in the spirit of constructive criticism, I think, from my viewpoint, you, much like promo here, write these things out and then say "well, I wrote them but that doesn't mean I agree with them being justifications" even as you are using them to justify what happened in an ongoing discussion about exactly that.

Same with this GHF part, GHF is, to me, responsibility of Israel, they blocked the aid, they, with the Trump government planned and executed GHF's aid distribution.

To me, as another left of center person, it's incredibly perplexing how you can just simply dismiss this and apparently not really care about who is behind the organization and how it came in to being:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Humanitarian_Foundation

When I read that, see the names, the Evangelicals, CIA operatives, private military all with no experience, and then look at what happened during the execution with aid being distributed at 4 distribution points instead of nearly 200, I can't understand how that can be defended.

What I'm trying to say, is that I don't get why your approach is like this.

I mean I do, kind of, I come from a country that was relatively recently at war. I've heard arguments from both Croats and Serbs justifying various war crimes, even people I respect intellectually and morally, so I do understand, but what makes me sad is that you can't just say:

"well, fuck it man, we did some fucked up shit and we should be called out, Hamas is worse, of course, but our government, Nethyanahu and the war council did some inexcusable things, so fuck them".

Instead we'll have long posts about was it technically a pressure tactic or not, was it to appease the right wingers or not.

That's not constructive, that, to me, is just letting your biases cloud your ability to see the full picture.

In any case, I get it and I appreciate you engaging so far, I get if you aren't interested in doing it moving forward, none of this is easy or necessary, for anyone who watched it and especially for people like you who lived through it in a much more visceral way then any of us did.

Cheers!