|
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 17 2023 05:57 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +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. Here is the population of world Jewery over the century. https://www.seder-olam.info/seder-olam-jewish-population-XXc.JPGSee that massive down spike in population? That is an attempted genocide by the Nazis. Here is the population growth of the Palestinian people since the State of Israel was formed. https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4QXgZt5_L9M/XB_cN-U9ALI/AAAAAAAADOw/4HmXpixDbV8UK4bEO-GJTiDk-xlGwbwRwCLcBGAs/s1600/Palestine2.png
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?
Obviously they tried to ignore it.
|
Norway28555 Posts
For a, to me, refreshing Israeli perspective, but also perhaps a disheartening premonition:
Settlers are trying to drag Israel into war in the West Bank - editorial from Hareetz
Now, Hareetz is known as a leftist paper, but they're also from Israel, so it's harder to claim that they don't have Israel's best interests at heart.
Here's the text spoilered for those who don't want to register:
+ Show Spoiler +
Settlers Are Trying to Drag Israel Into War in the West Bank
As Israelis closely monitor the risk of the opening of a northern front in the war, there are those who are deliberately encouraging the opening of an eastern front. There’s no other way to say it: Settlers are trying to drag Israel into war in the West Bank as well.
The number of attacks on Palestinians by settlers in the West Bank has increased since the war in the Gaza Strip began. Six Palestinians were killed in two incidents last week in the village of Qusra; according to residents, five were shot dead by settlers.
According to an IDF investigation, a military force heard gunshots and rushed to the scene with a response team from a nearby settlement. The soldiers claim they fired toward an open field, not the village, but the deceased were shot inside the village. A source in the defense establishment said the soldiers saw masked men leaving the village on an all-terrain vehicle, and videos show them shooting within the village.
In the days preceding the incident, in announcements posted on WhatsApp groups, settlers addressed villagers with the message: “We have no red lines. We’ll punish you in order to make an example out of you. We will ambush you!”
In addition, a settler was filmed shooting a Palestinian man point-blank in Al-Tuwani, a village in the South Hebron Hills. A video distributed by B’Tselem showed the settler approach, shove and then shoot the man, in the presence of an Israeli soldier. The army confiscated the gun and the assailant was questioned by police, but last week the IDF said it would supply about 1,000 additional guns to the settlements’ security teams.
In the wake of the attacks, IDF Spokesperson Daniel Hagari urged settlers not to “interfere with counter-terrorism efforts” and said that the responsibility for Israel’s security is “the army’s alone.” That is far from enough. There are cabinet members whose loyalty is above all to the settlement enterprise.
They and their partners in the governing coalition encouraged criminality and land theft and supported settler violence. The government and the man heading it, Benjamin Netanyahu, abandoned the Gaza border communities and left them defenseless, as the IDF provided security for every settler whim, whether the sukkah of Religious Zionism lawmaker Tzvi Yedidia Sukkot or settlers who wanted to pray at Joseph’s Tomb or at Mount Ebal. When people ask where the IDF was, part of the answer is: in the territories.
Through its hold on the government, the annexation and apartheid enterprise enables the settlers to create provocations and incite war in the West Bank too. To stop them, sending the IDF spokesperson is not enough. The prime minister must show up in person and order them to stop jeopardizing Israel’s security.
It’s hard to believe Netanyahu will oust Religious Zionism from the government, since he is consumed by concern for his political survival. But if he allows the settlers’ rampage to continue, which will lead to the opening of another front, he will be responsible for another failure in his series of disastrous failures.
The above article is Haaretz’s lead editorial, as published in the Hebrew and English newspapers in Israel.
Basically backs up the idea that the focus on the west bank, a focus necessitated by (or coordinated with?) violent acts committed by settler groups is part of what made Hamas able to execute such a deadly attack. A paragraph like 'In addition, a settler was filmed shooting a Palestinian man point-blank in Al-Tuwani, a village in the South Hebron Hills. A video distributed by B’Tselem showed the settler approach, shove and then shoot the man, in the presence of an Israeli soldier. The army confiscated the gun and the assailant was questioned by police, but last week the IDF said it would supply about 1,000 additional guns to the settlements’ security teams.' is especially disheartening: A settler shot a palestinian, on video and in the presence of an Israeli soldier, and what happened was that he was questioned and had his gun confiscated?
Now, I haven't seen the video and I have no idea what the supposed build up to that was, but it certainly makes it hard to accept the notion that 'if Palestinians just get rid of Hamas, everything will be fine and dandy'. To quote one of the comments to this article - presumably also posted by a Jewish Israeli: 'Settler fanatic Zealot Kahanists, who shoot innocent Palestinians, should be treated the same way as Hamas terrorists and be shot on site by the IDF. They are no less dangerous, as they can cause Israel to open a third front. We, in Israel, don't need a third front with further loss of lives.'
But instead, they're generally given more weapons.
|
On October 17 2023 05:57 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +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. Here is the population of world Jewery over the century. https://www.seder-olam.info/seder-olam-jewish-population-XXc.JPGSee that massive down spike in population? That is an attempted genocide by the Nazis. Here is the population growth of the Palestinian people since the State of Israel was formed. https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4QXgZt5_L9M/XB_cN-U9ALI/AAAAAAAADOw/4HmXpixDbV8UK4bEO-GJTiDk-xlGwbwRwCLcBGAs/s1600/Palestine2.png
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?
I'm just holding people accountable for their words. There are some things thrown around on the internet that are unsubstantiated or completely untrue. I'm just ensuring that this discussion is based on reality. If you have words besides for genocide that are accurate, feel free to use those.
No need to get testy about fact checking.
|
On October 16 2023 12:20 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2023 11:45 Cerebrate1 wrote:
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. Isn't the reason for that though that Israel is effectively occupying former Palestinian territory?
The reason Osama bin Laden destroyed the World Trade centers was similar. The guy had some arguably noble motives. But killing over 1,000 innocent civilians in cold blood is still bad. The issue there was the method he used to achieve his goals. Violence.
Ghandi and Martin Luther King made political change with peace. Those are visionaries whom we can follow.
If all of the Arab world wanted peace with Israel and Hamas was replaced by a Ghani, I can guarantee Israel would make a deal and give up land. Heck, you can see it in practice when they gave up the whole oil rich Sinai Peninsula (more land than the rest of Israel combined) to Egypt in 1979 in exchange for nothing more than a promise that Egypt would stop attacking.
You can agree with a cause and still reject violence as the answer. And you should, if you value a stable society.
Now imagine you had hooks in Bin Laden. You were building infrastructure for his community. Wouldn’t it make sense to make that building contingent on him not murdering more people?
On October 16 2023 17:55 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2023 08:57 Cerebrate1 wrote: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.
I don't know how much time you have spent in the Middle East, but I have spent the better part of a decade there and traveled to several countries in the region. Their mindset is definitely different than Westerners, but they are not so alien as to be irrational.
And even if you doubt me, is that a reason not to try? On the chance that you could incentivize peace without spending an extra dollar, why wouldn't you do it?
|
On October 17 2023 00:01 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2023 18:46 Salazarz wrote: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.
Israel's colonization of land that even Israelis themselves tentatively accept as belonging to Palestine during UN sessions and such predates the very creation of Hamas by something like two decades. If we look at status quo objectively, Palestinians have no good options to them as long as Israel continues to encroach upon their land while killing civilians and brushing it off as 'self defense' or not even bothering to brush it off at all. They kill and force Palestinians out of their homes, and more Palestinians radicalize leading to renewed terror attacks. They stop colonizing and killing...... oh, wait. They've never actually tried that so we can't say what happens if they do try.
Unless you can tell me an objectively good way Palestinians can handle this conflict, I'm not really interested in hearing about how bad Hamas is, because they are literally caught in a position of no good outcomes.
On October 17 2023 00:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2023 18:46 Salazarz wrote: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?
Because there are actual people living in places where Israel builds their settlements, and people generally don't enjoy being kicked out of their homes?
On October 17 2023 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2023 00:17 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2023 00:08 Mohdoo wrote:On October 16 2023 18:46 Salazarz wrote: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.
'We can't live next to these savages' and 'we have to protect our people' were some of the more popular excuses used to wipe out native tribes by the settlers in the US. So uh, are you saying that Palestinians deserve the same fate as the native Americans because they happen to live in a place that a nation of settlers decided to take for themselves?
On October 17 2023 03:01 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2023 18:46 Salazarz wrote: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.
They didn't leave because of Hamas or terrorism specifically, but they sure as hell didn't leave because they wanted to be nice to Palestine or because they decided to honor their commitment to the peace process or anything of the sort. They didn't even uphold the things they promised as part of their 'disengagement,' such as allowing transit between Gaza and West bank.
And how is it not relevant? You're saying Israel has 'the right to defend themselves' because they are surrounded by hostile states, well, it's not like they were invited to live there. They came to a land full of people hostile to them, had a whole bunch of wars with pretty much every neighbor, and caused a huge refugee crisis. The problem is, first and foremost, where and how the state of Israel was created, not that Arabs are all religious nutjobs who want to kill all Jews. Btw, the idea that Israel is not 'anti-arab' is ridiculous, minorities in Israel are discriminated against to this day.
And yeah okay, let's say the settlers from China are Uyghur and not Chinese. You'd be okay with them taking over LA then, since they have no home country?
Like, it's so weird how people are trying to claim that a nation which spent half a century forcing people out of their homes is not in the wrong and has 'no choice' but to keep colonizing and killing people.
|
On October 17 2023 05:57 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +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. Here is the population of world Jewery over the century. https://www.seder-olam.info/seder-olam-jewish-population-XXc.JPGSee that massive down spike in population? That is an attempted genocide by the Nazis. Here is the population growth of the Palestinian people since the State of Israel was formed. https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4QXgZt5_L9M/XB_cN-U9ALI/AAAAAAAADOw/4HmXpixDbV8UK4bEO-GJTiDk-xlGwbwRwCLcBGAs/s1600/Palestine2.png
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?
Until Hamas is no longer the governing body of Gaza, it is more accurate to frame the situation as war rather than genocide. This is not 1-sided. It is that one side is deeply screwed but continuing to fight because they are under the impression that dying in pursuit of killing all Jews gets a big thumbs up from god and that you get a quick trip to heaven.
When 2 ethnicities are fighting over the same land, ethnic cleansing is the lowest amount of bad stuff that can happen. They both seem to agree that it is not desirable for them both to hang around. But its worth pointing out Israel has not expressed an interest in removing all Palestinians from the entire region. Hamas recently reiterated their goal is 0 jews on the planet.
When one side of a war decides dying is not a bad thing so long as you continue to kill the other side, it creates a situation that is unique and difficult to solve. Since Hamas is very clear that the goal is for Israel to not exist, and for all Jews to be wiped out, even if we were to assume Israel dropped a bunch of pinatas rather than bombs, the war would not end. Cancel every settlement and pay out reparations and the goal remains firm: kill all Jews.
It would be fair to point out that Israelis could be the ones to relocate instead. However, Hamas thought ahead, and they are clear that the goal isn't actually achieved until there are 0 Jews in the whole world, not just Israel. So we end up in a bind unless we decide to relocate Israelis to another planet. That runs into the snag of terraforming technology. Also, Hamas has a history of disputes with Egypt and Lebanon, so the total amount of war may not actually be reduced by terraforming a new Jewish planet.
|
On October 17 2023 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2023 05:57 Broetchenholer wrote: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. Here is the population of world Jewery over the century. https://www.seder-olam.info/seder-olam-jewish-population-XXc.JPGSee that massive down spike in population? That is an attempted genocide by the Nazis. Here is the population growth of the Palestinian people since the State of Israel was formed. https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4QXgZt5_L9M/XB_cN-U9ALI/AAAAAAAADOw/4HmXpixDbV8UK4bEO-GJTiDk-xlGwbwRwCLcBGAs/s1600/Palestine2.png
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? Until Hamas is no longer the governing body of Gaza, it is more accurate to frame the situation as war rather than genocide. This is not 1-sided. It is that one side is deeply screwed but continuing to fight because they are under the impression that dying in pursuit of killing all Jews gets a big thumbs up from god and that you get a quick trip to heaven. When 2 ethnicities are fighting over the same land, ethnic cleansing is the lowest amount of bad stuff that can happen. They both seem to agree that it is not desirable for them both to hang around. But its worth pointing out Israel has not expressed an interest in removing all Palestinians from the entire region. Hamas recently reiterated their goal is 0 jews on the planet. When one side of a war decides dying is not a bad thing so long as you continue to kill the other side, it creates a situation that is unique and difficult to solve. Since Hamas is very clear that the goal is for Israel to not exist, and for all Jews to be wiped out, even if we were to assume Israel dropped a bunch of pinatas rather than bombs, the war would not end. Cancel every settlement and pay out reparations and the goal remains firm: kill all Jews. It would be fair to point out that Israelis could be the ones to relocate instead. However, Hamas thought ahead, and they are clear that the goal isn't actually achieved until there are 0 Jews in the whole world, not just Israel. So we end up in a bind unless we decide to relocate Israelis to another planet. That runs into the snag of terraforming technology. Also, Hamas has a history of disputes with Egypt and Lebanon, so the total amount of war may not actually be reduced by terraforming a new Jewish planet.
You're ignoring the fact that Israel pushing Palestinians out of their homes or just straight up killing them predates the creation of Hamas by a few decades. The goal of killing Jews wasn't born out of boredom, and the reason it's so easy for Hamas to find adherents willing to give their lives for the cause has less to do with Qiran than it has to do with the fact that Jews have made it extremely easy for Palestinians to hate them.
|
On October 17 2023 07:59 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2023 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2023 05:57 Broetchenholer wrote: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. Here is the population of world Jewery over the century. https://www.seder-olam.info/seder-olam-jewish-population-XXc.JPGSee that massive down spike in population? That is an attempted genocide by the Nazis. Here is the population growth of the Palestinian people since the State of Israel was formed. https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4QXgZt5_L9M/XB_cN-U9ALI/AAAAAAAADOw/4HmXpixDbV8UK4bEO-GJTiDk-xlGwbwRwCLcBGAs/s1600/Palestine2.png
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? Until Hamas is no longer the governing body of Gaza, it is more accurate to frame the situation as war rather than genocide. This is not 1-sided. It is that one side is deeply screwed but continuing to fight because they are under the impression that dying in pursuit of killing all Jews gets a big thumbs up from god and that you get a quick trip to heaven. When 2 ethnicities are fighting over the same land, ethnic cleansing is the lowest amount of bad stuff that can happen. They both seem to agree that it is not desirable for them both to hang around. But its worth pointing out Israel has not expressed an interest in removing all Palestinians from the entire region. Hamas recently reiterated their goal is 0 jews on the planet. When one side of a war decides dying is not a bad thing so long as you continue to kill the other side, it creates a situation that is unique and difficult to solve. Since Hamas is very clear that the goal is for Israel to not exist, and for all Jews to be wiped out, even if we were to assume Israel dropped a bunch of pinatas rather than bombs, the war would not end. Cancel every settlement and pay out reparations and the goal remains firm: kill all Jews. It would be fair to point out that Israelis could be the ones to relocate instead. However, Hamas thought ahead, and they are clear that the goal isn't actually achieved until there are 0 Jews in the whole world, not just Israel. So we end up in a bind unless we decide to relocate Israelis to another planet. That runs into the snag of terraforming technology. Also, Hamas has a history of disputes with Egypt and Lebanon, so the total amount of war may not actually be reduced by terraforming a new Jewish planet. You're ignoring the fact that Israel pushing Palestinians out of their homes or just straight up killing them predates the creation of Hamas by a few decades. The goal of killing Jews wasn't born out of boredom, and the reason it's so easy for Hamas to find adherents willing to give their lives for the cause has less to do with Qiran than it has to do with the fact that Jews have made it extremely easy for Palestinians to hate them.
Okay, and then you're ignoring that Jews throughout the middle east were forced out of their homes or straight up killed. The hatred towards Jews didn't start with Hamas, it is a middle east tradition.
Jews in Egypt were ethnically cleansed, forced to leave and a large part found Israel as the only safe place. Jews in Iraq were ethnically cleansed and a large part found Israel as the only safe place. Jews in Iran were ethnically cleansed and a large part found Israel as the only safe place. Add in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Turkey. Jews were ethnically cleansed out of all of those countries.
Where could they go? Should they go to Europe where their brothers just experienced a genocide and the anti-Jewish sentiment is still strong to this day? There are some safe areas in the US, but that's moving halfway across the world into a culture they don't understand. Still, plenty have come to the US.
Or should they move to another part of the middle east that is their ancestral homeland? A part that they mostly share culture with? That's where a large part chose to go. They ended up choosing the safest option, the one where they are only occasionally rocket attacked, terrorist attacked, and all of their neighbors want them genocided, but don't have the power.
If you hate ethnic cleansing so much. Where is your outrage at Egypt? Where is your outrage at Iraq? Where is your outrage at Iran? Where is your outrage at Morocco? Algeria? Tunisia? Libya? Yemen? Syria? Lebanon? Afghanistan? Turkey?
Is it because it's over already? Would your outrage at Israel go away in a year if they ethnically cleansed Palestine today?
|
On October 17 2023 08:31 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2023 07:59 Salazarz wrote:On October 17 2023 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2023 05:57 Broetchenholer wrote: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. Here is the population of world Jewery over the century. https://www.seder-olam.info/seder-olam-jewish-population-XXc.JPGSee that massive down spike in population? That is an attempted genocide by the Nazis. Here is the population growth of the Palestinian people since the State of Israel was formed. https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4QXgZt5_L9M/XB_cN-U9ALI/AAAAAAAADOw/4HmXpixDbV8UK4bEO-GJTiDk-xlGwbwRwCLcBGAs/s1600/Palestine2.png
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? Until Hamas is no longer the governing body of Gaza, it is more accurate to frame the situation as war rather than genocide. This is not 1-sided. It is that one side is deeply screwed but continuing to fight because they are under the impression that dying in pursuit of killing all Jews gets a big thumbs up from god and that you get a quick trip to heaven. When 2 ethnicities are fighting over the same land, ethnic cleansing is the lowest amount of bad stuff that can happen. They both seem to agree that it is not desirable for them both to hang around. But its worth pointing out Israel has not expressed an interest in removing all Palestinians from the entire region. Hamas recently reiterated their goal is 0 jews on the planet. When one side of a war decides dying is not a bad thing so long as you continue to kill the other side, it creates a situation that is unique and difficult to solve. Since Hamas is very clear that the goal is for Israel to not exist, and for all Jews to be wiped out, even if we were to assume Israel dropped a bunch of pinatas rather than bombs, the war would not end. Cancel every settlement and pay out reparations and the goal remains firm: kill all Jews. It would be fair to point out that Israelis could be the ones to relocate instead. However, Hamas thought ahead, and they are clear that the goal isn't actually achieved until there are 0 Jews in the whole world, not just Israel. So we end up in a bind unless we decide to relocate Israelis to another planet. That runs into the snag of terraforming technology. Also, Hamas has a history of disputes with Egypt and Lebanon, so the total amount of war may not actually be reduced by terraforming a new Jewish planet. You're ignoring the fact that Israel pushing Palestinians out of their homes or just straight up killing them predates the creation of Hamas by a few decades. The goal of killing Jews wasn't born out of boredom, and the reason it's so easy for Hamas to find adherents willing to give their lives for the cause has less to do with Qiran than it has to do with the fact that Jews have made it extremely easy for Palestinians to hate them. Okay, and then you're ignoring that Jews throughout the middle east were forced out of their homes or straight up killed. The hatred towards Jews didn't start with Hamas, it is a middle east tradition. Jews in Egypt were ethnically cleansed, forced to leave and a large part found Israel as the only safe place. Jews in Iraq were ethnically cleansed and a large part found Israel as the only safe place. Jews in Iran were ethnically cleansed and a large part found Israel as the only safe place. Add in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Turkey. Jews were ethnically cleansed out of all of those countries. Where could they go? Should they go to Europe where their brothers just experienced a genocide and the anti-Jewish sentiment is still strong to this day? There are some safe areas in the US, but that's moving halfway across the world into a culture they don't understand. Still, plenty have come to the US. Or should they move to another part of the middle east that is their ancestral homeland? A part that they mostly share culture with? That's where a large part chose to go. They ended up choosing the safest option, the one where they are only occasionally rocket attacked, terrorist attacked, and all of their neighbors want them genocided, but don't have the power. If you hate ethnic cleansing so much. Where is your outrage at Egypt? Where is your outrage at Iraq? Where is your outrage at Iran? Where is your outrage at Morocco? Algeria? Tunisia? Libya? Yemen? Syria? Lebanon? Afghanistan? Turkey? Is it because it's over already? Would your outrage at Israel go away in a year if they ethnically cleansed Palestine today?
I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think that X states engaging in ethnic cleansing in the past makes it acceptable for Israel to be doing the same in the present?
|
On October 17 2023 09:09 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2023 08:31 RenSC2 wrote:On October 17 2023 07:59 Salazarz wrote:On October 17 2023 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2023 05:57 Broetchenholer wrote: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. Here is the population of world Jewery over the century. https://www.seder-olam.info/seder-olam-jewish-population-XXc.JPGSee that massive down spike in population? That is an attempted genocide by the Nazis. Here is the population growth of the Palestinian people since the State of Israel was formed. https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4QXgZt5_L9M/XB_cN-U9ALI/AAAAAAAADOw/4HmXpixDbV8UK4bEO-GJTiDk-xlGwbwRwCLcBGAs/s1600/Palestine2.png
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? Until Hamas is no longer the governing body of Gaza, it is more accurate to frame the situation as war rather than genocide. This is not 1-sided. It is that one side is deeply screwed but continuing to fight because they are under the impression that dying in pursuit of killing all Jews gets a big thumbs up from god and that you get a quick trip to heaven. When 2 ethnicities are fighting over the same land, ethnic cleansing is the lowest amount of bad stuff that can happen. They both seem to agree that it is not desirable for them both to hang around. But its worth pointing out Israel has not expressed an interest in removing all Palestinians from the entire region. Hamas recently reiterated their goal is 0 jews on the planet. When one side of a war decides dying is not a bad thing so long as you continue to kill the other side, it creates a situation that is unique and difficult to solve. Since Hamas is very clear that the goal is for Israel to not exist, and for all Jews to be wiped out, even if we were to assume Israel dropped a bunch of pinatas rather than bombs, the war would not end. Cancel every settlement and pay out reparations and the goal remains firm: kill all Jews. It would be fair to point out that Israelis could be the ones to relocate instead. However, Hamas thought ahead, and they are clear that the goal isn't actually achieved until there are 0 Jews in the whole world, not just Israel. So we end up in a bind unless we decide to relocate Israelis to another planet. That runs into the snag of terraforming technology. Also, Hamas has a history of disputes with Egypt and Lebanon, so the total amount of war may not actually be reduced by terraforming a new Jewish planet. You're ignoring the fact that Israel pushing Palestinians out of their homes or just straight up killing them predates the creation of Hamas by a few decades. The goal of killing Jews wasn't born out of boredom, and the reason it's so easy for Hamas to find adherents willing to give their lives for the cause has less to do with Qiran than it has to do with the fact that Jews have made it extremely easy for Palestinians to hate them. Okay, and then you're ignoring that Jews throughout the middle east were forced out of their homes or straight up killed. The hatred towards Jews didn't start with Hamas, it is a middle east tradition. Jews in Egypt were ethnically cleansed, forced to leave and a large part found Israel as the only safe place. Jews in Iraq were ethnically cleansed and a large part found Israel as the only safe place. Jews in Iran were ethnically cleansed and a large part found Israel as the only safe place. Add in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Turkey. Jews were ethnically cleansed out of all of those countries. Where could they go? Should they go to Europe where their brothers just experienced a genocide and the anti-Jewish sentiment is still strong to this day? There are some safe areas in the US, but that's moving halfway across the world into a culture they don't understand. Still, plenty have come to the US. Or should they move to another part of the middle east that is their ancestral homeland? A part that they mostly share culture with? That's where a large part chose to go. They ended up choosing the safest option, the one where they are only occasionally rocket attacked, terrorist attacked, and all of their neighbors want them genocided, but don't have the power. If you hate ethnic cleansing so much. Where is your outrage at Egypt? Where is your outrage at Iraq? Where is your outrage at Iran? Where is your outrage at Morocco? Algeria? Tunisia? Libya? Yemen? Syria? Lebanon? Afghanistan? Turkey? Is it because it's over already? Would your outrage at Israel go away in a year if they ethnically cleansed Palestine today? I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think that X states engaging in ethnic cleansing in the past makes it acceptable for Israel to be doing the same in the present?
my dude you just got finished explaining why Hamas has valid feelings lol
On October 17 2023 07:59 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2023 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2023 05:57 Broetchenholer wrote: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. Here is the population of world Jewery over the century. https://www.seder-olam.info/seder-olam-jewish-population-XXc.JPGSee that massive down spike in population? That is an attempted genocide by the Nazis. Here is the population growth of the Palestinian people since the State of Israel was formed. https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4QXgZt5_L9M/XB_cN-U9ALI/AAAAAAAADOw/4HmXpixDbV8UK4bEO-GJTiDk-xlGwbwRwCLcBGAs/s1600/Palestine2.png
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? Until Hamas is no longer the governing body of Gaza, it is more accurate to frame the situation as war rather than genocide. This is not 1-sided. It is that one side is deeply screwed but continuing to fight because they are under the impression that dying in pursuit of killing all Jews gets a big thumbs up from god and that you get a quick trip to heaven. When 2 ethnicities are fighting over the same land, ethnic cleansing is the lowest amount of bad stuff that can happen. They both seem to agree that it is not desirable for them both to hang around. But its worth pointing out Israel has not expressed an interest in removing all Palestinians from the entire region. Hamas recently reiterated their goal is 0 jews on the planet. When one side of a war decides dying is not a bad thing so long as you continue to kill the other side, it creates a situation that is unique and difficult to solve. Since Hamas is very clear that the goal is for Israel to not exist, and for all Jews to be wiped out, even if we were to assume Israel dropped a bunch of pinatas rather than bombs, the war would not end. Cancel every settlement and pay out reparations and the goal remains firm: kill all Jews. It would be fair to point out that Israelis could be the ones to relocate instead. However, Hamas thought ahead, and they are clear that the goal isn't actually achieved until there are 0 Jews in the whole world, not just Israel. So we end up in a bind unless we decide to relocate Israelis to another planet. That runs into the snag of terraforming technology. Also, Hamas has a history of disputes with Egypt and Lebanon, so the total amount of war may not actually be reduced by terraforming a new Jewish planet. You're ignoring the fact that Israel pushing Palestinians out of their homes or just straight up killing them predates the creation of Hamas by a few decades. The goal of killing Jews wasn't born out of boredom, and the reason it's so easy for Hamas to find adherents willing to give their lives for the cause has less to do with Qiran than it has to do with the fact that Jews have made it extremely easy for Palestinians to hate them.
Yeah and Jews have been expelled from Muslim countries in the past, and then Jews did this, and then Muslims did this blah blah blah, its just not worth focusing on because both factions have done like 99999 insane genocide things throughout this dog shit conflict.
I think framing the conflict as historically 1-sided is more than a little silly. It doesn't get us anywhere. Every time we point to (deeply unethical thing) Muslims did in the past, Jews can pull the calendar back a bit and show something similar, then the Muslims pull the calendar back a bit and do the same. Rinse and repeat. I think pointing to history in these contexts is purely destructive and doesn't get us anywhere.
I'll go ahead and assume if you have enough examples in your head to frame Jews as solely responsible for this conflict, you can think of "other times the bad guys won", so reflect on that and tell me why the ethics of the situation mean anything with regards to what the ultimate outcome will be.
As I've said before, I don't think either Jews or Muslims should occupy Jerusalem. I think they have each totally lost their Jerusalem privileges based on their behavior the last 1000 years. The land ought to be given to someone who is capable of chilling out. But I am able to see there is zero chance of that ever happening, just like a 2-state solution, so its not really worth bringing up.
|
On October 17 2023 07:12 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2023 12:20 Manit0u wrote:On October 16 2023 11:45 Cerebrate1 wrote:
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. Isn't the reason for that though that Israel is effectively occupying former Palestinian territory? The reason Osama bin Laden destroyed the World Trade centers was similar. The guy had some arguably noble motives. But killing over 1,000 innocent civilians in cold blood is still bad. The issue there was the method he used to achieve his goals. Violence. Ghandi and Martin Luther King made political change with peace. Those are visionaries whom we can follow. If all of the Arab world wanted peace with Israel and Hamas was replaced by a Ghani, I can guarantee Israel would make a deal and give up land. Heck, you can see it in practice when they gave up the whole oil rich Sinai Peninsula (more land than the rest of Israel combined) to Egypt in 1979 in exchange for nothing more than a promise that Egypt would stop attacking. You can agree with a cause and still reject violence as the answer. And you should, if you value a stable society. Now imagine you had hooks in Bin Laden. You were building infrastructure for his community. Wouldn’t it make sense to make that building contingent on him not murdering more people? Show nested quote +On October 16 2023 17:55 Magic Powers wrote:On October 16 2023 08:57 Cerebrate1 wrote: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. I don't know how much time you have spent in the Middle East, but I have spent the better part of a decade there and traveled to several countries in the region. Their mindset is definitely different than Westerners, but they are not so alien as to be irrational. And even if you doubt me, is that a reason not to try? On the chance that you could incentivize peace without spending an extra dollar, why wouldn't you do it?
You're somehow never reading my argument correctly. Palestinians are not Hamas. Only Hamas are Hamas. They're not like other Palestinians, they're radical, they're extreme, they're fanatic. Palestinians are largely regular people, some with more radical views than others, but they're not comparable to the fanaticism of Hamas members.
So when you think of a typical Palestinian, or a typical Arab, then that's a person who's very unlikely to have extremist views like Hamas do. That means you can't understand Hamas by understanding Arabs. You can only understand Hamas by understanding Hamas.
|
On October 17 2023 09:26 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2023 07:12 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 16 2023 12:20 Manit0u wrote:On October 16 2023 11:45 Cerebrate1 wrote:
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. Isn't the reason for that though that Israel is effectively occupying former Palestinian territory? The reason Osama bin Laden destroyed the World Trade centers was similar. The guy had some arguably noble motives. But killing over 1,000 innocent civilians in cold blood is still bad. The issue there was the method he used to achieve his goals. Violence. Ghandi and Martin Luther King made political change with peace. Those are visionaries whom we can follow. If all of the Arab world wanted peace with Israel and Hamas was replaced by a Ghani, I can guarantee Israel would make a deal and give up land. Heck, you can see it in practice when they gave up the whole oil rich Sinai Peninsula (more land than the rest of Israel combined) to Egypt in 1979 in exchange for nothing more than a promise that Egypt would stop attacking. You can agree with a cause and still reject violence as the answer. And you should, if you value a stable society. Now imagine you had hooks in Bin Laden. You were building infrastructure for his community. Wouldn’t it make sense to make that building contingent on him not murdering more people? On October 16 2023 17:55 Magic Powers wrote:On October 16 2023 08:57 Cerebrate1 wrote: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. I don't know how much time you have spent in the Middle East, but I have spent the better part of a decade there and traveled to several countries in the region. Their mindset is definitely different than Westerners, but they are not so alien as to be irrational. And even if you doubt me, is that a reason not to try? On the chance that you could incentivize peace without spending an extra dollar, why wouldn't you do it? You're somehow never reading my argument correctly. Palestinians are not Hamas. Only Hamas are Hamas. They're not like other Palestinians, they're radical, they're extreme, they're fanatic. Palestinians are largely regular people, some with more radical views than others, but they're not comparable to the fanaticism of Hamas members. So when you think of a typical Palestinian, or a typical Arab, then that's a person who's very unlikely to have extremist views like Hamas do. That means you can't understand Hamas by understanding Arabs. You can only understand Hamas by understanding Hamas.
This is true but you are overstating the extent to which Palestinians disagree with Hamas. If they agreed with your perspective, these statements would be very different:
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4243396-palestine-defends-attack-on-israel/
^ The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
^Statement from Rashida Tlaib
Hamas is being framed as entirely distinct and removed from Palestinians, but I am not seeing the perspective you are describing echoed by Palestinians.
Also, what is the other method of eliminating Hamas? Is it that you have a different solution to Hamas no longer controlling land and serving as a government? The goal isn't to eliminate all members of Hamas. The goal is for Hamas to no longer serve as a governing body.
|
www.cnn.com
Joe Brandon is going to Isreal.
www.cnn.com
A Marine landing force is traveling to the east med.
I don't think we've seen the long rumored invasion into gaza and I think this is why. The US is doing a lot to prevent it from escalating and I think we can all hope for and pray for it not to happen somehow. This is a window I think where massive moves can be made to change the middle east for the better, or for the worse.
|
On October 17 2023 10:23 Sermokala wrote:www.cnn.comJoe Brandon is going to Isreal. www.cnn.comA Marine landing force is traveling to the east med. I don't think we've seen the long rumored invasion into gaza and I think this is why. The US is doing a lot to prevent it from escalating and I think we can all hope for and pray for it not to happen somehow. This is a window I think where massive moves can be made to change the middle east for the better, or for the worse.
Isn't rolling through Gaza a foregone conclusion at this point and its just a matter of what the various Hamas-enablers do as a response? Hamas continuing to exist as a governing body appears to be a firm "no" at this point and its more so a matter of how that is achieved.
|
On October 17 2023 10:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2023 10:23 Sermokala wrote:www.cnn.comJoe Brandon is going to Isreal. www.cnn.comA Marine landing force is traveling to the east med. I don't think we've seen the long rumored invasion into gaza and I think this is why. The US is doing a lot to prevent it from escalating and I think we can all hope for and pray for it not to happen somehow. This is a window I think where massive moves can be made to change the middle east for the better, or for the worse. Isn't rolling through Gaza a foregone conclusion at this point and its just a matter of what the various Hamas-enablers do as a response? Hamas continuing to exist as a governing body appears to be a firm "no" at this point and its more so a matter of how that is achieved.
I don't think it is a forgone conclusion and thats why Isreal hasn't done it yet. I'm very hopeful that they can find a way to end hamas control of gaza without an Isreali invasion,or at least without the massive escalation it would cause in the middle east. Demanding fresh elections and tieing global aid to hamas leaving power is a least an option that should be persued with all effort.
|
On October 17 2023 10:51 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2023 10:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2023 10:23 Sermokala wrote:www.cnn.comJoe Brandon is going to Isreal. www.cnn.comA Marine landing force is traveling to the east med. I don't think we've seen the long rumored invasion into gaza and I think this is why. The US is doing a lot to prevent it from escalating and I think we can all hope for and pray for it not to happen somehow. This is a window I think where massive moves can be made to change the middle east for the better, or for the worse. Isn't rolling through Gaza a foregone conclusion at this point and its just a matter of what the various Hamas-enablers do as a response? Hamas continuing to exist as a governing body appears to be a firm "no" at this point and its more so a matter of how that is achieved. I don't think it is a forgone conclusion and thats why Isreal hasn't done it yet. I'm very hopeful that they can find a way to end hamas control of gaza without an Isreali invasion,or at least without the massive escalation it would cause in the middle east. Demanding fresh elections and tieing global aid to hamas leaving power is a least an option that should be persued with all effort.
My read on the situation is that they are increasingly sure Iran will make a fuss about it and that the extra muscle is to either prevent that response entirely or swat Iran away if needed. But I am not an expert by any means, so who gives a shit what i think lol
|
On October 17 2023 09:26 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2023 07:12 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 16 2023 12:20 Manit0u wrote:On October 16 2023 11:45 Cerebrate1 wrote:
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. Isn't the reason for that though that Israel is effectively occupying former Palestinian territory? The reason Osama bin Laden destroyed the World Trade centers was similar. The guy had some arguably noble motives. But killing over 1,000 innocent civilians in cold blood is still bad. The issue there was the method he used to achieve his goals. Violence. Ghandi and Martin Luther King made political change with peace. Those are visionaries whom we can follow. If all of the Arab world wanted peace with Israel and Hamas was replaced by a Ghani, I can guarantee Israel would make a deal and give up land. Heck, you can see it in practice when they gave up the whole oil rich Sinai Peninsula (more land than the rest of Israel combined) to Egypt in 1979 in exchange for nothing more than a promise that Egypt would stop attacking. You can agree with a cause and still reject violence as the answer. And you should, if you value a stable society. Now imagine you had hooks in Bin Laden. You were building infrastructure for his community. Wouldn’t it make sense to make that building contingent on him not murdering more people? On October 16 2023 17:55 Magic Powers wrote:On October 16 2023 08:57 Cerebrate1 wrote: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. I don't know how much time you have spent in the Middle East, but I have spent the better part of a decade there and traveled to several countries in the region. Their mindset is definitely different than Westerners, but they are not so alien as to be irrational. And even if you doubt me, is that a reason not to try? On the chance that you could incentivize peace without spending an extra dollar, why wouldn't you do it? You're somehow never reading my argument correctly. Palestinians are not Hamas. Only Hamas are Hamas. They're not like other Palestinians, they're radical, they're extreme, they're fanatic. Palestinians are largely regular people, some with more radical views than others, but they're not comparable to the fanaticism of Hamas members. So when you think of a typical Palestinian, or a typical Arab, then that's a person who's very unlikely to have extremist views like Hamas do. That means you can't understand Hamas by understanding Arabs. You can only understand Hamas by understanding Hamas.
I understand you. I just think you overestimate how different Hamas thinks.
Regardless, my last line is my main point, which I'd love to hear your response if you disagree: why not try? Make the amount of aid continent on good behavior. All governments, even authoritarian regimes, need to keep their people happy to rule. People will be more happy with more aid and pissed at Hamas if the aid drops whenever they attack.
|
How about Israel does that. Israel is illegally occupying Gaza and cutting it off from the rest of the world, every bit of extra help the Palestinians in Gaza get would be appreciated.
|
On October 17 2023 13:22 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2023 09:26 Magic Powers wrote:On October 17 2023 07:12 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 16 2023 12:20 Manit0u wrote:On October 16 2023 11:45 Cerebrate1 wrote:
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. Isn't the reason for that though that Israel is effectively occupying former Palestinian territory? The reason Osama bin Laden destroyed the World Trade centers was similar. The guy had some arguably noble motives. But killing over 1,000 innocent civilians in cold blood is still bad. The issue there was the method he used to achieve his goals. Violence. Ghandi and Martin Luther King made political change with peace. Those are visionaries whom we can follow. If all of the Arab world wanted peace with Israel and Hamas was replaced by a Ghani, I can guarantee Israel would make a deal and give up land. Heck, you can see it in practice when they gave up the whole oil rich Sinai Peninsula (more land than the rest of Israel combined) to Egypt in 1979 in exchange for nothing more than a promise that Egypt would stop attacking. You can agree with a cause and still reject violence as the answer. And you should, if you value a stable society. Now imagine you had hooks in Bin Laden. You were building infrastructure for his community. Wouldn’t it make sense to make that building contingent on him not murdering more people? On October 16 2023 17:55 Magic Powers wrote:On October 16 2023 08:57 Cerebrate1 wrote: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. I don't know how much time you have spent in the Middle East, but I have spent the better part of a decade there and traveled to several countries in the region. Their mindset is definitely different than Westerners, but they are not so alien as to be irrational. And even if you doubt me, is that a reason not to try? On the chance that you could incentivize peace without spending an extra dollar, why wouldn't you do it? You're somehow never reading my argument correctly. Palestinians are not Hamas. Only Hamas are Hamas. They're not like other Palestinians, they're radical, they're extreme, they're fanatic. Palestinians are largely regular people, some with more radical views than others, but they're not comparable to the fanaticism of Hamas members. So when you think of a typical Palestinian, or a typical Arab, then that's a person who's very unlikely to have extremist views like Hamas do. That means you can't understand Hamas by understanding Arabs. You can only understand Hamas by understanding Hamas. I understand you. I just think you overestimate how different Hamas thinks. Regardless, my last line is my main point, which I'd love to hear your response if you disagree: why not try? Make the amount of aid continent on good behavior. All governments, even authoritarian regimes, need to keep their people happy to rule. People will be more happy with more aid and pissed at Hamas if the aid drops whenever they attack.
Your question "why not try?" is just another reason why I think you don't understand Hamas. It shows that you don't understand extreme religious devotion. They will never try to make peace because their ideology is opposite to that. To them, peace equates to destroying Israel and killing all Jews. It's in the text that they adhere to. It's in the speeches of their thought leaders. There is strictly no other valid, less barbaric path for them. Hamas will never show "good behavior". It's strictly impossible. They'll destroy Israel. That's the only way. They don't care how much bloodshed is necessary to accomplish that. They don't care about the death count on any of the sides. They don't care about innocent deaths. It's all for God. You can't reason with such people.
|
On October 17 2023 19:12 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2023 13:22 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 17 2023 09:26 Magic Powers wrote:On October 17 2023 07:12 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 16 2023 12:20 Manit0u wrote:On October 16 2023 11:45 Cerebrate1 wrote:
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. Isn't the reason for that though that Israel is effectively occupying former Palestinian territory? The reason Osama bin Laden destroyed the World Trade centers was similar. The guy had some arguably noble motives. But killing over 1,000 innocent civilians in cold blood is still bad. The issue there was the method he used to achieve his goals. Violence. Ghandi and Martin Luther King made political change with peace. Those are visionaries whom we can follow. If all of the Arab world wanted peace with Israel and Hamas was replaced by a Ghani, I can guarantee Israel would make a deal and give up land. Heck, you can see it in practice when they gave up the whole oil rich Sinai Peninsula (more land than the rest of Israel combined) to Egypt in 1979 in exchange for nothing more than a promise that Egypt would stop attacking. You can agree with a cause and still reject violence as the answer. And you should, if you value a stable society. Now imagine you had hooks in Bin Laden. You were building infrastructure for his community. Wouldn’t it make sense to make that building contingent on him not murdering more people? On October 16 2023 17:55 Magic Powers wrote:On October 16 2023 08:57 Cerebrate1 wrote: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. I don't know how much time you have spent in the Middle East, but I have spent the better part of a decade there and traveled to several countries in the region. Their mindset is definitely different than Westerners, but they are not so alien as to be irrational. And even if you doubt me, is that a reason not to try? On the chance that you could incentivize peace without spending an extra dollar, why wouldn't you do it? You're somehow never reading my argument correctly. Palestinians are not Hamas. Only Hamas are Hamas. They're not like other Palestinians, they're radical, they're extreme, they're fanatic. Palestinians are largely regular people, some with more radical views than others, but they're not comparable to the fanaticism of Hamas members. So when you think of a typical Palestinian, or a typical Arab, then that's a person who's very unlikely to have extremist views like Hamas do. That means you can't understand Hamas by understanding Arabs. You can only understand Hamas by understanding Hamas. I understand you. I just think you overestimate how different Hamas thinks. Regardless, my last line is my main point, which I'd love to hear your response if you disagree: why not try? Make the amount of aid continent on good behavior. All governments, even authoritarian regimes, need to keep their people happy to rule. People will be more happy with more aid and pissed at Hamas if the aid drops whenever they attack. Your question "why not try?" is just another reason why I think you don't understand Hamas. It shows that you don't understand extreme religious devotion. They will never try to make peace because their ideology is opposite to that. To them, peace equates to destroying Israel and killing all Jews. It's in the text that they adhere to. It's in the speeches of their thought leaders. There is strictly no other valid, less barbaric path for them. Hamas will never show "good behavior". It's strictly impossible. They'll destroy Israel. That's the only way. They don't care how much bloodshed is necessary to accomplish that. They don't care about the death count on any of the sides. They don't care about innocent deaths. It's all for God. You can't reason with such people.
Their book says nothing of the kind. However their interpretation of their book might. Then again, Wahabism is no less extremist and the Saudis seem like they shoved their extremist views aside far enough to normalise their relations with Israel. So claiming they can't be reasoned with because they're religious extremists is a false dichotomy. Yes, they are religious extremists and I'm sure there's a particularly crazy faction inside Hamas that cannot be reasoned with (and that faction is no doubt encouraged and funded by Iran who do so for geopolitical reasons far moreso than religion). However I also don't doubt that there are a lot of Hamas who see the religious aspect as a means to an end: driving Israel off the land they want to live on. PLO "went soft", so anybody who believes the solution is to blow Israelis up until they give in or die is going to join Hamas, even if they don't care much about religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
