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 18 2023 12:09 ChristianS wrote: @Jimmi, Cerebrate: If I were to describe Hamas as a “radical pro-Palestinian militant group/terrorist organization” would that seem off the mark to you? I’m not defending them, they’re directly responsible for an enormous number of atrocities, including some really nightmarish ones in very recent memory. And like any terrorist organization they’re clearly fine with Hamas members or Palestinian civilians dying for the cause. But if someone blew up a Palestinian hospital it seems obviously bad faith to say “well it’s probably them because we know they’re fine with civilian casualties”?
@Mohdoo: is it confirmed it originated from within Gaza? Do you have a source for that? That obviously changes the probabilities somewhat.
I’m fine with Hamas ceasing to exist. They’re awful, and I think Netanyahu propping them up was an enormous disservice to both Israelis and Palestinians. But you were also pretty clear in extremely recent memory that nobody cared about the Palestinians and Israel should be free to prosecute their war however they want (i.e. with total disregard for the laws of armed conflict). If so, and (hypothetically, I know the facts aren’t in yet) they targeted a hospital and lied about it, are you still saying that they should be immune from criticism?
I don’t think I said no one cares about Palestinians, but I did point out that the nations most suited to provide refuge have declined to do so. And my position is that unless someone has another method of removing Hamas from the equation, I don’t think I have the right to ask Israel to not participate in a war when the other faction is still participating. If Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, and Jordan are shrugging at the situation, I don’t see what other options are being given to Israel.
It all comes down to:
1: no other ideas being presented
2: my belief that is it morally permissible for a nation to choose for others to die rather than their own, so long as we assume there is an inescapable amount of death that takes place either way. I essentially believe in their right to say “not it!”.
3: If Israel was being provided with an alternative, non-violent method of eliminating Hamas as a governing body of Gaza, I would no longer support their attacks on Gaza.
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.
I think you are thinking too small. I'm not talking about debating a single religious extremist, I'm talking about changing the policy of a government body. Even dictators, at some level, need the consent of the people. According to this poll from about a year ago, about a third of Palestinians support Hamas: https://pcpsr.org/en/node/920 That's enough support that a coup is unlikely, but too much lower and it's chances rise.
If you make it obvious to the people of Gaza that they will get more aid for extended peace and cutbacks for fighting, you can be sure that all the Palestinians who think with their stomach or wallet will start hating Hamas every time a missile is fired.
Even if you don't think Hamas has the self-preservation instinct to change policy to cater to their people's desires, the people may just up and revolt (likely with the help of a well placed lieutenant).
Given you see Hamas as unreasoning barbarians, killing their popularity and encouraging regime change from within Gaza should be very desirable to you. Especially since the only downside anyone has proposed to this plan is it might not work, I really wonder why we wouldn't try.
On October 18 2023 00:24 Broetchenholer wrote: Bullshit. Islam was the most peaceful religion for centuries, it was tolerant and enlightened while Christianity was burning witches and murdering the jews. You cannot claim both that all religion wants to genocide because of their book and one in particular because it is not bound by society.
This comment hits the nail on the head too. There were times when Islamic empires were the center of science and reason in the world . Religions are full of scriptures that can lead to many different paths, depending on which you focus on. Politics very often plays a role in shaping what part of a faith will gain centrality. 50 years ago, every Saudi Imam was preaching about how Israel was the devil, but I just heard a speech by a Saudi Imam about how Israel is descended from Abraham through Isaac, like Muslims are descended to Abraham through Ishmael (which is black on white in the Quran). That they are cousins and entitled to the land that God gave to Moses. If that's not politics affecting religion, I don't know what is.
Of final note: the PLO began as a religious terrorist organization bent on Israel's destruction, not at all dissimilar to today's Hamas. Yet today the PLO is seen as a maker of peace. So such transformations are evidently possible.
On October 18 2023 12:09 ChristianS wrote: @Jimmi, Cerebrate: If I were to describe Hamas as a “radical pro-Palestinian militant group/terrorist organization” would that seem off the mark to you? I’m not defending them, they’re directly responsible for an enormous number of atrocities, including some really nightmarish ones in very recent memory. And like any terrorist organization they’re clearly fine with Hamas members or Palestinian civilians dying for the cause. But if someone blew up a Palestinian hospital it seems obviously bad faith to say “well it’s probably them because we know they’re fine with civilian casualties”?
@Mohdoo: is it confirmed it originated from within Gaza? Do you have a source for that? That obviously changes the probabilities somewhat.
I’m fine with Hamas ceasing to exist. They’re awful, and I think Netanyahu propping them up was an enormous disservice to both Israelis and Palestinians. But you were also pretty clear in extremely recent memory that nobody cared about the Palestinians and Israel should be free to prosecute their war however they want (i.e. with total disregard for the laws of armed conflict). If so, and (hypothetically, I know the facts aren’t in yet) they targeted a hospital and lied about it, are you still saying that they should be immune from criticism?
I don’t think I said no one cares about Palestinians, but I did point out that the nations most suited to provide refuge have declined to do so. And my position is that unless someone has another method of removing Hamas from the equation, I don’t think I have the right to ask Israel to not participate in a war when the other faction is still participating. If Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, and Jordan are shrugging at the situation, I don’t see what other options are being given to Israel.
It all comes down to:
1: no other ideas being presented
2: my belief that is it morally permissible for a nation to choose for others to die rather than their own, so long as we assume there is an inescapable amount of death that takes place either way. I essentially believe in their right to say “not it!”.
3: If Israel was being provided with an alternative, non-violent method of eliminating Hamas as a governing body of Gaza, I would no longer support their attacks on Gaza.
I don’t think I ever said “nonviolent,” I said Israel shouldn’t commit war crimes. We’re all clear that “war crimes” isn’t just a fancy way of saying “acts of war,” right? Like, if Israel starts sending ground troops into Hamas tunnels or seizing their missile launch sites, those wouldn’t be war crimes? But if they, say, blockade 2 million civilians from getting food or water, that is? I don’t have to personally set up an enormous refugee camp for every displaced Palestinian to oppose war crimes.
On October 18 2023 12:09 ChristianS wrote: @Jimmi, Cerebrate: If I were to describe Hamas as a “radical pro-Palestinian militant group/terrorist organization” would that seem off the mark to you? I’m not defending them, they’re directly responsible for an enormous number of atrocities, including some really nightmarish ones in very recent memory. And like any terrorist organization they’re clearly fine with Hamas members or Palestinian civilians dying for the cause. But if someone blew up a Palestinian hospital it seems obviously bad faith to say “well it’s probably them because we know they’re fine with civilian casualties”?
@Mohdoo: is it confirmed it originated from within Gaza? Do you have a source for that? That obviously changes the probabilities somewhat.
I’m fine with Hamas ceasing to exist. They’re awful, and I think Netanyahu propping them up was an enormous disservice to both Israelis and Palestinians. But you were also pretty clear in extremely recent memory that nobody cared about the Palestinians and Israel should be free to prosecute their war however they want (i.e. with total disregard for the laws of armed conflict). If so, and (hypothetically, I know the facts aren’t in yet) they targeted a hospital and lied about it, are you still saying that they should be immune from criticism?
Perhaps I should clarify my post. Your previous post seemed to indicate that Hamas did not want Palestinians to die.
On October 18 2023 09:44 Sermokala wrote: The strange part is defaulting on the idf being responsible and needing evidence to believe otherwise.
In my eyes it comes down to:
1) Hamas has openly encouraged their inhabitants/members to sacrifice their lives in any way possible towards the goal of killing all Jews.
2) Hamas considers it ethical to use hospitals as missile launch sites because even if the hospital gets bombed, the optics harm Israel badly and the people who die go to heaven anyway since it was all in pursuit of killing Jews
3) Israel has made a non-zero effort to prevent civilian casualties, though we of course know they don't always let Hamas's tactic of using human shields prevent their objectives from being achieved
So if we know Hamas encourages civilian casualties in pursuit of their goal of killing all Jews, would that not mean we actually have more reason to assume Hamas would do this? Wouldn't we even have more reason to believe Hamas would do this *intentionally* compared to Israel?
Israel appears to understand sufficient international pressure will harm their goals and that they need to be as humane as possible if nothing else for that reason. Even if we assume they are soulless, they are 100% aware they need some level of optics mitigation/consideration. Bombing a hospital like this would need to be a HUGE value target to justify the optics of this. Especially since this entire situation is being live streamed from like 100 different angles.
Inside job? You’re going with that?
No, I think the more likely solution is an error on the part of Hamas. I don't think it was intentional. But I am pointing out that "civilian casualties in pursuit of killing more Jews" is openly endorsed within Hamas.
This is such bad faith bullshit. First you’re JAQing off about whether Hamas might have done it intentionally, then denying it but still bringing up that they’re in favor of “civilian casualties” (not Palestinian casualties, last I checked). Didn’t you just get done saying you thought it was unintentional? Then what’s that got to do with it anyway? Meanwhile if it is unintentional you haven’t even given a reason you think it’s more likely a Hamas mistake than an IDF one!
It was only like yesterday you were saying nobody in the world gave a shit if Israel commits war crimes because everybody hates Palestinians so we shouldn’t bother criticizing it, now you’re saying it’s probably not the IDF because they know committing war crimes will cause international pressure that will hurt their goals. It’s almost as though your position is pure liquid, molding itself to any container as long as that container is pro-Israel. What’s the point in arguing with you if even you don’t seem to believe whatever you’re saying at any given moment?
I was merely arguing that point in isolation. You seem to now agree that they have a disregard for Palestinian lives, so perhaps I just misunderstood your earlier post.
I do agree with your main point though, that just having callous disregard for their citizens is not a proof that they would destroy their own hospital.
And as I said, I don't think intentional self sabotage was the plan here.
Looks somewhat likely that it was Israel. Nothing definitive.
I'm (genuinely) confused as to why this particular strike is so important? It wouldn't change any of my opinions if it was Hamas and I don't think it would change the opinions of anyone on the other side if it was Israel.
On October 18 2023 12:09 ChristianS wrote: @Jimmi, Cerebrate: If I were to describe Hamas as a “radical pro-Palestinian militant group/terrorist organization” would that seem off the mark to you? I’m not defending them, they’re directly responsible for an enormous number of atrocities, including some really nightmarish ones in very recent memory. And like any terrorist organization they’re clearly fine with Hamas members or Palestinian civilians dying for the cause. But if someone blew up a Palestinian hospital it seems obviously bad faith to say “well it’s probably them because we know they’re fine with civilian casualties”?
@Mohdoo: is it confirmed it originated from within Gaza? Do you have a source for that? That obviously changes the probabilities somewhat.
I’m fine with Hamas ceasing to exist. They’re awful, and I think Netanyahu propping them up was an enormous disservice to both Israelis and Palestinians. But you were also pretty clear in extremely recent memory that nobody cared about the Palestinians and Israel should be free to prosecute their war however they want (i.e. with total disregard for the laws of armed conflict). If so, and (hypothetically, I know the facts aren’t in yet) they targeted a hospital and lied about it, are you still saying that they should be immune from criticism?
I don’t think I said no one cares about Palestinians, but I did point out that the nations most suited to provide refuge have declined to do so. And my position is that unless someone has another method of removing Hamas from the equation, I don’t think I have the right to ask Israel to not participate in a war when the other faction is still participating. If Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, and Jordan are shrugging at the situation, I don’t see what other options are being given to Israel.
It all comes down to:
1: no other ideas being presented
2: my belief that is it morally permissible for a nation to choose for others to die rather than their own, so long as we assume there is an inescapable amount of death that takes place either way. I essentially believe in their right to say “not it!”.
3: If Israel was being provided with an alternative, non-violent method of eliminating Hamas as a governing body of Gaza, I would no longer support their attacks on Gaza.
I don’t think I ever said “nonviolent,” I said Israel shouldn’t commit war crimes. We’re all clear that “war crimes” isn’t just a fancy way of saying “acts of war,” right? Like, if Israel starts sending ground troops into Hamas tunnels or seizing their missile launch sites, those wouldn’t be war crimes? But if they, say, blockade 2 million civilians from getting food or water, that is? I don’t have to personally set up an enormous refugee camp for every displaced Palestinian to oppose war crimes.
I think that’s all fair and I agree. I think the part of your views I don’t understand yet is how the dilemma of eliminating Hamas is balanced with harming non-combatants along the way. If Hamas is launching rockets from a hospital, and generally conducting terrorist plots from within a hospital, what should Israel do?
I think we all agree Hamas makes sure to operate out of hospitals, schools, and other various civilian places specifically because of the dynamic you’re describing. Do you agree? Are we on the same page that the only way to eliminate Hamas’s ability to control land is to knowingly bomb schools and stuff?
That is my impression. My understanding is that Israel is trying to convince people to leave these areas so that they can operate without hesitation and totally annihilate Hamas because Hamas is wildly inferior as a military power when you remove the asymmetric warfare component.
So that is where the actual moral dilemma comes in. If the only way to prevent non-combatants from Israel from dying to attacks from Hamas is to consciously decide to allow non-combatants from Gaza to die, what choice should Israel make?
That is why I have emphasized the importance of exploring alternatives. We all agree non-combatants being killed is very bad regardless of which “side” they are on. But since we can safely assume non-combatant Israelis will continue to be killed by Hamas if the Israeli military doesn’t destroy Hamas, that would be Israel prioritizing Gaza folks over Israel folks. The key thing here is that we are safely assuming someone innocent dies regardless of which choice we make.
Terrorist organizations will always exist and a non-zero amount of terrorism deaths are a part of living in human society. But we have seen in great detail how much Hamas’s ability to execute large scale attacks is enhanced by controlling land. They can launch missiles, stage attacks and manage a large inventory of weapons by controlling land and serving as a government. So even if we assume terrorism is a baseline assumption, everyone can agree eliminating Hamas as a government will drastically reduce Hamas’s ability to kill Israeli non-combatants. So it is still a choice of who dies. Not whether or not anyone dies, but who does.
How should Israel answer that question? If you have another method of eliminating Hamas, I’m happy to hear it and I certainly take no pride in my knowledge of the situation, and you’re generally knowledgeable about things. So I generally just assume you’ll understand a topic like this better than me.
To my knowledge, no one has found a method of wiping out Hamas that doesn’t necessitate non-combatant death. So if the choice is in Israel’s hands, I accept that they choose the option that they have reason to believe reduces the number of non-combatants from Israel that die.
Does this clarify the gist of my logic? Does my reasoning break down somewhere? Are we operating on different assumptions?
On October 18 2023 13:22 Nebuchad wrote: Looks somewhat likely that it was Israel. Nothing definitive.
I'm (genuinely) confused as to why this particular strike is so important? It wouldn't change any of my opinions if it was Hamas and I don't think it would change the opinions of anyone on the other side if it was Israel.
It happened right as Isreal is posturing to ocupy gaza and the Us president is flying in personally to the region. The local leaders are useing this as a reason to cancel their meetings with said US president in protest. I would expect some of that to reverse as people regognize the moment but who knows.
On October 18 2023 13:22 Nebuchad wrote: Looks somewhat likely that it was Israel. Nothing definitive.
I'm (genuinely) confused as to why this particular strike is so important? It wouldn't change any of my opinions if it was Hamas and I don't think it would change the opinions of anyone on the other side if it was Israel.
Israel already cut off water, food, electricity to over 2 million people, so why put it past them to bomb a hospital.
As for Middle Eastern leaders cancelling their meeting with Biden, it means little.Biden is a senile old fool and the meeting would have achieved nothing of importance.There is no respect for Biden, he's a joke and that makes the situation far more concerning.
On October 18 2023 13:22 Nebuchad wrote: Looks somewhat likely that it was Israel. Nothing definitive.
I'm (genuinely) confused as to why this particular strike is so important? It wouldn't change any of my opinions if it was Hamas and I don't think it would change the opinions of anyone on the other side if it was Israel.
Opinions don't really change but given enough motivation people will organize and pressure politicians. Moments like this are crucial to determine just how much leeway Israel gets once it moves into Gaza.
Blown up hospital is just great PR when pleading for sympathy.
Unfortunately it doesn't really matter much who was responsible, accident or not. If this was a Islamic Dshihad rocket fallen short, no one in the arab world will believe it, no matter how conclusive the evidence might be that the Israelis will provide.
I hope this doesn't seal the deal for Hezbollah entering the conflict in force, but looks like it. They are already calling for a "day of rage" whatever that might mean and some their supporters are urging them to attack.
On October 18 2023 15:53 r00ty wrote: Unfortunately it doesn't really matter much who was responsible, accident or not. If this was a Islamic Dshihad rocket fallen short, no one in the arab world will believe it, no matter how conclusive the evidence might be that the Israelis will provide.
Sure, but that works both ways. US will never admit it was Israel either. By now the guilty party would have destroyed any hard evidence anyway.
On October 18 2023 13:22 Nebuchad wrote: Looks somewhat likely that it was Israel. Nothing definitive.
I'm (genuinely) confused as to why this particular strike is so important? It wouldn't change any of my opinions if it was Hamas and I don't think it would change the opinions of anyone on the other side if it was Israel.
It's not about changing minds. It's about how brutal this war is going to be. If Israel bombs a hospital with hundreds of civilians while the US president is visiting with one of the stated reasons to pressure Netanyahu to not go full Mohdoo on Gaza, it is a clear and obvious statement telling the US to fuck off and if Israel wants to murder thousands of civilians they will do so. Tue US can stand with them or against them, but will have quite openly failed in their diplomacy. That signal will also be received in the Arab world.
Meanwhile if Hamas tried to shoot a missile at Israel and it misfired (or even was shot down by Iron Dome) the whole situation is a tragic accident.
And why is this the missile that breaks the camel's back? That just comes down to statistics and target. It hit a hospital with hundreds of civilians, and it's the single deadliest missile strike ever in Gaza. Leaving the border closed, closing the taps and shutting off electricity will no doubt kill far more people than a single missile strike, but a single strike is a visceral visual symbol of the brutality.
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.
I think you are thinking too small. I'm not talking about debating a single religious extremist, I'm talking about changing the policy of a government body. Even dictators, at some level, need the consent of the people. According to this poll from about a year ago, about a third of Palestinians support Hamas: https://pcpsr.org/en/node/920 That's enough support that a coup is unlikely, but too much lower and it's chances rise.
If you make it obvious to the people of Gaza that they will get more aid for extended peace and cutbacks for fighting, you can be sure that all the Palestinians who think with their stomach or wallet will start hating Hamas every time a missile is fired.
Even if you don't think Hamas has the self-preservation instinct to change policy to cater to their people's desires, the people may just up and revolt (likely with the help of a well placed lieutenant).
Given you see Hamas as unreasoning barbarians, killing their popularity and encouraging regime change from within Gaza should be very desirable to you. Especially since the only downside anyone has proposed to this plan is it might not work, I really wonder why we wouldn't try.
On October 18 2023 00:24 Broetchenholer wrote: Bullshit. Islam was the most peaceful religion for centuries, it was tolerant and enlightened while Christianity was burning witches and murdering the jews. You cannot claim both that all religion wants to genocide because of their book and one in particular because it is not bound by society.
This comment hits the nail on the head too. There were times when Islamic empires were the center of science and reason in the world . Religions are full of scriptures that can lead to many different paths, depending on which you focus on. Politics very often plays a role in shaping what part of a faith will gain centrality. 50 years ago, every Saudi Imam was preaching about how Israel was the devil, but I just heard a speech by a Saudi Imam about how Israel is descended from Abraham through Isaac, like Muslims are descended to Abraham through Ishmael (which is black on white in the Quran). That they are cousins and entitled to the land that God gave to Moses. If that's not politics affecting religion, I don't know what is.
Of final note: the PLO began as a religious terrorist organization bent on Israel's destruction, not at all dissimilar to today's Hamas. Yet today the PLO is seen as a maker of peace. So such transformations are evidently possible.
I've watched a lot of interviews of Russians about the war. Their answers don't match the statistics. It's quite clear that, by and large, they don't support Putin and they don't support the draft, and they don't support the war either. This becomes even more evident as there are also some who fear speaking in front of a camera with their faces shown, so they refuse to be interviewed. The interviews I've seen came from various parts of the country, not just Moscow, but also less affluent regions where the fathers are left strolling around without their sons. They don't want this war. And yet the statistics show overwhelming support from all over Russia. Putin and the war are clearly far more disliked by the Russian people than he wants to admit, and the claim of overwhelming support is pure propaganda.
No, Hamas doesn't need the support of the people. They're terrorists. They terrorize the population and force them into submission. The people aren't free to do or say what they want, and Hamas has full control over them. There can be not revolt. Hamas has the firepower to destroy an internal uprising with ease.
Eh, polls show considerable support for Hamas in the West Bank, too. here is a source indicating that even more people in east Jerusalem have a positive view of Hamas, and also that groups like Palestinian islamic jihad are supported by more than half of gazans.
I'm not surprised, tbh. Violent struggle is a popular prospect for an oppressed population. People in the West Bank seem dissatisfied with Fatah - as mentioned in the hareetz article i posted recently, settlers can kill with impunity, and the feeling of being subjugated and oppressed is certainly experienced there as well. The gazans also know how shitty Hamas is, whereas for people in east Jerusalem they might to a larger degree be a symbol of a violent struggle they themselves are positive towards.
ISISrael In their foundational hope, to create a religious supremacist state. In choosing to establish said state in an already populated area, thus the realization of the hope necessitating conquest and ethnic cleansing. In their religious fundamentalist justification. In their barbarism.
On October 18 2023 13:22 Nebuchad wrote: Looks somewhat likely that it was Israel. Nothing definitive.
I'm (genuinely) confused as to why this particular strike is so important? It wouldn't change any of my opinions if it was Hamas and I don't think it would change the opinions of anyone on the other side if it was Israel.
Given the latest information that the IDF has presented, do you still think it was likely caused by an Israeli airstrike?
On October 18 2023 13:22 Nebuchad wrote: Looks somewhat likely that it was Israel. Nothing definitive.
I'm (genuinely) confused as to why this particular strike is so important? It wouldn't change any of my opinions if it was Hamas and I don't think it would change the opinions of anyone on the other side if it was Israel.
Given the latest information that the IDF has presented, do you still think it was likely caused by an Israeli airstrike?
What happened was the IDF was very eager to say that it wasn't them and they posted at several occasions images that were later removed because they had the wrong timestamp or were from years ago. I couldn't make sense of why they would go to the trouble of doing that if they didn't do it, so that was my reasoning for saying it was likely. With the timing of Biden's visit as others have pointed out, it would make sense that they'd rush to disprove it either way. So no, I don't really know at this point.
On October 18 2023 13:22 Nebuchad wrote: Looks somewhat likely that it was Israel. Nothing definitive.
I'm (genuinely) confused as to why this particular strike is so important? It wouldn't change any of my opinions if it was Hamas and I don't think it would change the opinions of anyone on the other side if it was Israel.
Given the latest information that the IDF has presented, do you still think it was likely caused by an Israeli airstrike?
What happened was the IDF was very eager to say that it wasn't them and they posted at several occasions images that were later removed because they had the wrong timestamp or were from years ago. I couldn't make sense of why they would go to the trouble of doing that if they didn't do it, so that was my reasoning for saying it was likely. With the timing of Biden's visit as others have pointed out, it would make sense that they'd rush to disprove it either way. So no, I don't really know at this point.
If my recollections are correct, the IDF took a couple of hours before they commented.
Anyone genuinely interested in who is responsible can just wait a few days for the satellite footage of the site. Hamas is launching much smaller payloads than Israel is dropping. Even OSINT experts should be able to tell the difference by the scale of destruction. By then the political and media circus will have moved on anyway.
EPT
