|
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. |
@RenSC2: that’s certainly an optimistic projection. How often is that actually how it goes, do you think? If you told a Palestinian that’s how it generally goes when Israel decides to bomb them, do you think they would agree?
@Mohdoo: I can’t give you a complete plan of attack for Israel, I don’t have access to any of the relevant information and I’m not a military strategist. But it’s maybe worth reiterating that there’s no such thing as “controlling the land” without a ground invasion. So “how does dropping this bomb help us control the land” isn’t really a sensible question on its own.
Broadly speaking, there’s just no way all these bombs they’ve been dropping are rooted in solid intelligence that a Hamas facility is hidden there. Since all of this is hidden behind military intelligence we can’t actually say what their justification was for any given strike, but when they’re hitting every single building in a neighborhood? When they’re dropping 6000 bombs in 72 hours? It’s hard to imagine every one of those is getting carefully litigated by someone with a genuine desire to limit collateral damage. Especially when the leadership is giving quotes to media along the lines of “We’re just gonna level every building” and “when you think about it every Palestinian is responsible for what Hamas did to us.”
The ground invasion seems inevitable at this point, so in terms of “what should they do” I guess I’d say “make clear you won’t shoot civilians and you aren’t trying to take their land” would be a good start. People would be more willing to follow evacuation orders. if they didn’t suspect you were never going to let them return.
|
yep yep
+ Show Spoiler +https://poleshift.ning.com/forum/topics/zetatalk-chat-for-october-31-2023?commentId=3863141:Comment:1159774SOZT This nebulous Q quote has never been explained. Why would Israel need to be last during the ongoing cleanup of the Khazarian Mafia and their Satanist practices? Israel is held above the fray by the global network of puppets controlled by bribes and debt slavery. This requires funds which until recently the Rothschild Western banks provided. These banks, such as the US Federal Reserve, are going bankrupt, and reorganizing under a different banner. As recently noted, the Fed is Dead. https://www.zetatalk.com/newsletr/issue891.htmIn addition to losing their funding, Israel no longer has the political backing in these Western countries because the politicians that supported them have been arrested and executed. Gitmo has been very busy - expanded to over 5,000 new beds and with almost constant airplane traffic from the US. Politicians with rubber masks https://www.zetatalk.com/newsletr/issue872.htmnot properly fitted are seen on captured photos. These include Biden and VP Harris. In desperation Israel has started another war with the Palestinians, so poorly deployed that the world is not fooled. EOZT
User was temp banned for this post.
|
United States41976 Posts
I clicked on his link to see his evidence and this is literally the first page I landed on.
ZetaTalk Prediction 8/31/2021: We have predicted that when the New Madrid turmoil occurs toward the end of 2021 or early 2022 and requires Martial Law, that the Military will casually announce that President Trump never left office, and that no one will care.
Moon Swirls
Nibiru’s Moon Swirls arrived in 2003 as part of the Nibiru Complex. Because Nibiru itself is so often shrouded with red iron oxide dust, they are often visible when Nibiru is not. The Moons within a swirl arrange themselves into long tubes, like DNA twists, attracted to each other while at the same time due to the Gravity Repulsion force pushing away from each other. Seen from the side, they look like a streak or line, but when seen from the front they are a bright light, like a flashlight, and lined up form a String of Pearls.
ZetaTalk Description 6/15/1997: Planet X's moons travel like a string of pearls behind the monster traveling planet.
In 2003 when they were heading in toward the Sun they presented as a Double Helix as the two Dominant Moons nearest to Nibiru sought for dominance.
|
On October 20 2023 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 10:20 Salazarz wrote:If we assume 100% of all houses bombed were occupied by people who intended to kill an Israeli the next day, we would all agree it is entirely appropriate to bomb those houses. No, we would not 'all agree' that it is appropriate, what kind of psycho bullshit assumption is that? They're living in a ghetto ran by radical terror group and cut off from virtually all 'normal' interactions of the modern civilized world, obviously they fucking hate the people who bear at least a significant portion of responsibility for their situation, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to just kill them all. I'm pretty sure most folks in North Vietnam would kill an American if they had an opportunity to do so, that doesn't make the bombing campaigns and indiscriminate strafing of their villages any less of a disgusting war crime. When you create an oppressed minority that hates their stronger neighbor, the 'appropriate' response isn't to oppress them even harder until their hate for you reaches a level sufficient to justify straight up exterminating the whole lot, it's to figure out a way to ease the tensions and co-exist with as little violence as possible. When someone is about to kill you, generally people agree it is ethical to defend yourself and/or kill them first. I separated the people who hate Israelis from the people who are actively intending to kill Israelis because you are right to point out that living under Hamas is going to make people think/feel very hatefully, but people shouldn't be killed for being hateful. I think it would only be ethical to kill someone who hates you if you know they were about to kill you. I think you may have misinterpreted my message because I am not equating hate with a guarantee the hate will translate into direct action to kill. In short, hate = no reason to kill. About to kill you = plenty of reason to kill. I agree the ideal path is peaceful coexistence. Since Hamas has clearly stated they intend to repeat their attack and that they want all Jews to be dead, inside and outside of Israel, I think we can confidently say whatever coexisting future they work towards should not include Hamas. And so that is where "of course it makes sense to just kill every soldier and/or military member of Hamas" because there is clearly stated intention to repeat the killings they have already conducted. Hamas is very clear that they are at war with Israel. And so it follows that Israel is also at war with Hamas. So it is entirely reasonable for Hamas soldiers to kill Israeli soldiers and it is reasonable for Israeli soldiers to kill Hamas soldiers. But it is not ok for soldiers to kill non-soldiers of course. That's where this whole conundrum gets difficult. If Hamas soldiers try to play on that dynamic by using residential areas for military purposes, where Israel has the choice between bombing a house or allowing rockets to be launched, the only way Israel is able to avoid killing Palestinian non-combatants is to consciously decide to allow Hamas to just keep launching rockets into Israel forever. Clearly that would be silly, since it would be Israel patting Hamas on the head and saying "I understand you are upset, but I am going to take the high road and allow for non-combatant Israelis to be killed". Is it that you are saying Israel is supposed to take the high road or something? Be the bigger man by allowing more attacks like the recent one to happen every so often? Since Hamas is clear that they intend to kill all Jews, not just the ones in settlements and whatnot, taking the high-road is more so choosing to lose a war and be wiped out. What am I misunderstanding? Is Hamas not intending to kill all Jews?
So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people?
|
On October 20 2023 11:58 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 10:20 Salazarz wrote:If we assume 100% of all houses bombed were occupied by people who intended to kill an Israeli the next day, we would all agree it is entirely appropriate to bomb those houses. No, we would not 'all agree' that it is appropriate, what kind of psycho bullshit assumption is that? They're living in a ghetto ran by radical terror group and cut off from virtually all 'normal' interactions of the modern civilized world, obviously they fucking hate the people who bear at least a significant portion of responsibility for their situation, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to just kill them all. I'm pretty sure most folks in North Vietnam would kill an American if they had an opportunity to do so, that doesn't make the bombing campaigns and indiscriminate strafing of their villages any less of a disgusting war crime. When you create an oppressed minority that hates their stronger neighbor, the 'appropriate' response isn't to oppress them even harder until their hate for you reaches a level sufficient to justify straight up exterminating the whole lot, it's to figure out a way to ease the tensions and co-exist with as little violence as possible. When someone is about to kill you, generally people agree it is ethical to defend yourself and/or kill them first. I separated the people who hate Israelis from the people who are actively intending to kill Israelis because you are right to point out that living under Hamas is going to make people think/feel very hatefully, but people shouldn't be killed for being hateful. I think it would only be ethical to kill someone who hates you if you know they were about to kill you. I think you may have misinterpreted my message because I am not equating hate with a guarantee the hate will translate into direct action to kill. In short, hate = no reason to kill. About to kill you = plenty of reason to kill. I agree the ideal path is peaceful coexistence. Since Hamas has clearly stated they intend to repeat their attack and that they want all Jews to be dead, inside and outside of Israel, I think we can confidently say whatever coexisting future they work towards should not include Hamas. And so that is where "of course it makes sense to just kill every soldier and/or military member of Hamas" because there is clearly stated intention to repeat the killings they have already conducted. Hamas is very clear that they are at war with Israel. And so it follows that Israel is also at war with Hamas. So it is entirely reasonable for Hamas soldiers to kill Israeli soldiers and it is reasonable for Israeli soldiers to kill Hamas soldiers. But it is not ok for soldiers to kill non-soldiers of course. That's where this whole conundrum gets difficult. If Hamas soldiers try to play on that dynamic by using residential areas for military purposes, where Israel has the choice between bombing a house or allowing rockets to be launched, the only way Israel is able to avoid killing Palestinian non-combatants is to consciously decide to allow Hamas to just keep launching rockets into Israel forever. Clearly that would be silly, since it would be Israel patting Hamas on the head and saying "I understand you are upset, but I am going to take the high road and allow for non-combatant Israelis to be killed". Is it that you are saying Israel is supposed to take the high road or something? Be the bigger man by allowing more attacks like the recent one to happen every so often? Since Hamas is clear that they intend to kill all Jews, not just the ones in settlements and whatnot, taking the high-road is more so choosing to lose a war and be wiped out. What am I misunderstanding? Is Hamas not intending to kill all Jews? So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people?
Are you considering Palestine and Hamas as the same thing? I think for this discussion, it is important to separate the 2.
But here is what I think each group, treated as 2 separate entities ought to do:
1) Palestinians should do everything they can to put as much distance between themselves and Hamas soldiers so that they are not caught in the cross-fire of Israel soldiers vs Hamas soldiers. Israel will bomb places they think have Hamas weapons. Hamas weapons are not perfect and sometimes fail. In both cases, it is better for a Palestinian to be very far away from both Israeli and Hamas soldiers
2) Hamas soldiers should relinquish their weapons and surrender. Hamas has already lost their war against Israel, as evidenced by the expanding colonies refer to. If the goal of Hamas is to make Israel have less land and Palestine have more land, they have failed with flying colors. Hamas is ineffective as a military organization and has lost land continuously. They have no path to victory and they are only harming the people they claim to fight for.
May I ask how you would answer your question? What should each of the 2 groups do?
|
I forget who brought this up, but I just want to add some zoomed out geopolitics for to understand some of the other actors at play.
Jordan- The King basically likes Israel. They give his people much needed water and they are predictably friendly with Jordan as long as Jordanians aren't attacking Israel. He doesn't really like the Palestinians (or at least their leadership). The PLO basically started a civil war in Jordan and tried to assassinate his father several times. Given that Palestinian leadership and terrorist hide amongst the civilians, he is loath to let any refugees in lest it lead to more terrorism etc in Jordan. So he's generally happy to work with Israel and America, but he walks a tightrope, because the common people in Jordan support Muslims vs Jews, and he doesn't want to much civil unrest. So he was in talks with the Americans until the hospital issue made enough of his people upset that he had to reverse course. So Hamas won big on Jordan with that lie.
Egypt- Sisi hates Hamas with a passion. Hamas is very closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, who are Sisi's biggest enemies in Egypt. So he probably hopes Israel wins and destroys them. That said, similar to Jordan, he really doesn't want any Palestinians ending up in Egypt, because historically, whenever that happens, there is terrorism in Egypt, which he doesn't want to deal with, especially if that terrorism assists the Muslim Brotherhood. Also similar to Jordan, his people mostly hate Israel and like Palestinians, so he can't appear like he's helping Israel. In fact, he has to make a show of helping the Palestinians by sending aid trucks. But also, he will totally gun down every single Palestinian refugee before letting them into his country.
Syria- Assad hates Israel, but he's got bigger problems at home to worry about with the current civil war still raging. He can't really say no to Iran/Hezbollah/Russia doing what they want in his backyard because they are keeping him afloat, but probably won't attack Israel directly, because that would lead to being blown into the stone age and losing his civil war.
Lebanon- The leadership is basically corrupt/incompetent and dealing with issues at home. That said, Hezbollah is a militant group in Lebanon that may have more firepower than the government itself. The government would love for Hezbollah to just sit down and shut up so Lebanon doesn't get destroyed again in war, but they can't really stop Hezbollah. Hezbollah is basically a Hamas with better guns and a smaller PR team. They know they will get destroyed if they attack without more backup, but they really want Hamas to win. That's why they are doing what they can to keep Israel nervous enough to keep a lot of troops up north, but they don't want to attack too hard and get bombed to oblivion either.
Iran- They force children in schools to chant death to America and Israel every morning. That said, they really prefer not to get their own hands dirty if they don't have to. A conventional war with Israel and/or America would go badly for them.
Hamas- Is screwed by themselves, which is why they are doing everything in their power to bring others into the conflict.
Russia- Is one of the only real winners in this conflict. No one cares about Russian war crimes or stopping Russia in general when the Israel/Arab conflict is so much more interesting. This part is a little tin foil hatty, but I personally think Oct 7th was their brain child. If all the meetings with Hamas weren't enough, all the communications at the Israel observation tower went down on Oct 7th. If you think Hamas outwitted Israel in tech, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Plus, it was Putin's birthday, and he's famous for making bad stuff happen on that day.
China- They are the other potential winners here. If America backs down and doesn't defend their long time close ally Israel in their time of need, there is no way they'll put their neck out there for Taiwan, which the US has only ever said relatively ambiguous statements about defending in the first place. Not to mention the loss of American soft power around the world. America's best way to gain allies is to say they'll defend them. If it's shown that they don't defend their allies, countries like South Korea and Japan won't be nearly so pliable to American interests.
Altogether, there is a very delicate house of cards stacked up here. Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran are afraid of Israel alone, but if enough other groups also attacked, they would happily join. Jordan and Egypt are quietly rooting for Israel, but if their populations get mad enough, they may have to switch teams to keep the civil unrest down. So if enough groups attack, they may all attack, leading to yet another existential war for Israel. That's why, even if you don't believe Israel won't do it because of their higher sense of morality, you should know that Israel will absolutely avoid committing any atrocities because it would be strategically foolish to do so.
|
On October 20 2023 11:58 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 10:20 Salazarz wrote:If we assume 100% of all houses bombed were occupied by people who intended to kill an Israeli the next day, we would all agree it is entirely appropriate to bomb those houses. No, we would not 'all agree' that it is appropriate, what kind of psycho bullshit assumption is that? They're living in a ghetto ran by radical terror group and cut off from virtually all 'normal' interactions of the modern civilized world, obviously they fucking hate the people who bear at least a significant portion of responsibility for their situation, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to just kill them all. I'm pretty sure most folks in North Vietnam would kill an American if they had an opportunity to do so, that doesn't make the bombing campaigns and indiscriminate strafing of their villages any less of a disgusting war crime. When you create an oppressed minority that hates their stronger neighbor, the 'appropriate' response isn't to oppress them even harder until their hate for you reaches a level sufficient to justify straight up exterminating the whole lot, it's to figure out a way to ease the tensions and co-exist with as little violence as possible. When someone is about to kill you, generally people agree it is ethical to defend yourself and/or kill them first. I separated the people who hate Israelis from the people who are actively intending to kill Israelis because you are right to point out that living under Hamas is going to make people think/feel very hatefully, but people shouldn't be killed for being hateful. I think it would only be ethical to kill someone who hates you if you know they were about to kill you. I think you may have misinterpreted my message because I am not equating hate with a guarantee the hate will translate into direct action to kill. In short, hate = no reason to kill. About to kill you = plenty of reason to kill. I agree the ideal path is peaceful coexistence. Since Hamas has clearly stated they intend to repeat their attack and that they want all Jews to be dead, inside and outside of Israel, I think we can confidently say whatever coexisting future they work towards should not include Hamas. And so that is where "of course it makes sense to just kill every soldier and/or military member of Hamas" because there is clearly stated intention to repeat the killings they have already conducted. Hamas is very clear that they are at war with Israel. And so it follows that Israel is also at war with Hamas. So it is entirely reasonable for Hamas soldiers to kill Israeli soldiers and it is reasonable for Israeli soldiers to kill Hamas soldiers. But it is not ok for soldiers to kill non-soldiers of course. That's where this whole conundrum gets difficult. If Hamas soldiers try to play on that dynamic by using residential areas for military purposes, where Israel has the choice between bombing a house or allowing rockets to be launched, the only way Israel is able to avoid killing Palestinian non-combatants is to consciously decide to allow Hamas to just keep launching rockets into Israel forever. Clearly that would be silly, since it would be Israel patting Hamas on the head and saying "I understand you are upset, but I am going to take the high road and allow for non-combatant Israelis to be killed". Is it that you are saying Israel is supposed to take the high road or something? Be the bigger man by allowing more attacks like the recent one to happen every so often? Since Hamas is clear that they intend to kill all Jews, not just the ones in settlements and whatnot, taking the high-road is more so choosing to lose a war and be wiped out. What am I misunderstanding? Is Hamas not intending to kill all Jews? So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people?
From my perspective his prescription basically boils down to "voluntarily being ethnically cleansed is better than being forcibly genocided so they should choose the former or suffer the latter".
Considering he very recently learned leaving isn't actually a choice available to Palestinians even if they wanted to, it's now essentially "Stand in the empty desert without water or food until you die or you're maybe lucky enough to be allowed to leave your homeland/rubble where your home used to be indefinitely (probably forever)".
|
|
|
Norway28556 Posts
Watched a 10 minute interview with Ian Bremmer last night. Notable and relevant takeaway was his statement that there are between 30 and 40k combatants on the Gaza strip, rest are civilian. That corresponds to something like 2% of the population there. This, imo, shows two things - that Israel has been better than I've given them credit for at targeting Hamas (assuming the same figure applied for 2014, and that the UN numbers are good), as 35% of their killed were combatants. But it also shows that a huge majority of gazans should be considered civilians (and Israel from 2014 were basically 'ehh naw' on that for men between 16 and 50).
Mohdoo, everybody agrees it is okay to kill someone about to kill you. But how i understand it, if Israel hadn't dropped the ball and concentrated their efforts on the west bank (which again is caused by the settlers), this attack would not have happened.
|
On October 20 2023 11:31 ChristianS wrote:
@RenSC2: that’s certainly an optimistic projection. How often is that actually how it goes, do you think? If you told a Palestinian that’s how it generally goes when Israel decides to bomb them, do you think they would agree?
@Mohdoo: I can’t give you a complete plan of attack for Israel, I don’t have access to any of the relevant information and I’m not a military strategist. But it’s maybe worth reiterating that there’s no such thing as “controlling the land” without a ground invasion. So “how does dropping this bomb help us control the land” isn’t really a sensible question on its own.
Broadly speaking, there’s just no way all these bombs they’ve been dropping are rooted in solid intelligence that a Hamas facility is hidden there. Since all of this is hidden behind military intelligence we can’t actually say what their justification was for any given strike, but when they’re hitting every single building in a neighborhood? When they’re dropping 6000 bombs in 72 hours? It’s hard to imagine every one of those is getting carefully litigated by someone with a genuine desire to limit collateral damage. Especially when the leadership is giving quotes to media along the lines of “We’re just gonna level every building” and “when you think about it every Palestinian is responsible for what Hamas did to us.”
The ground invasion seems inevitable at this point, so in terms of “what should they do” I guess I’d say “make clear you won’t shoot civilians and you aren’t trying to take their land” would be a good start. People would be more willing to follow evacuation orders. if they didn’t suspect you were never going to let them return.
They've already said occupation of Gaza is not their intent and that civilians aren't their target. It hardly matters what they say because there's zero trust between Israel and Palestinians for obvious reasons.
|
I, uh, wouldn’t say the messaging has been totally consistent on that front. A commitment to no annexed territory would go a long way.
|
On October 20 2023 12:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 11:58 Salazarz wrote:On October 20 2023 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 10:20 Salazarz wrote:If we assume 100% of all houses bombed were occupied by people who intended to kill an Israeli the next day, we would all agree it is entirely appropriate to bomb those houses. No, we would not 'all agree' that it is appropriate, what kind of psycho bullshit assumption is that? They're living in a ghetto ran by radical terror group and cut off from virtually all 'normal' interactions of the modern civilized world, obviously they fucking hate the people who bear at least a significant portion of responsibility for their situation, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to just kill them all. I'm pretty sure most folks in North Vietnam would kill an American if they had an opportunity to do so, that doesn't make the bombing campaigns and indiscriminate strafing of their villages any less of a disgusting war crime. When you create an oppressed minority that hates their stronger neighbor, the 'appropriate' response isn't to oppress them even harder until their hate for you reaches a level sufficient to justify straight up exterminating the whole lot, it's to figure out a way to ease the tensions and co-exist with as little violence as possible. When someone is about to kill you, generally people agree it is ethical to defend yourself and/or kill them first. I separated the people who hate Israelis from the people who are actively intending to kill Israelis because you are right to point out that living under Hamas is going to make people think/feel very hatefully, but people shouldn't be killed for being hateful. I think it would only be ethical to kill someone who hates you if you know they were about to kill you. I think you may have misinterpreted my message because I am not equating hate with a guarantee the hate will translate into direct action to kill. In short, hate = no reason to kill. About to kill you = plenty of reason to kill. I agree the ideal path is peaceful coexistence. Since Hamas has clearly stated they intend to repeat their attack and that they want all Jews to be dead, inside and outside of Israel, I think we can confidently say whatever coexisting future they work towards should not include Hamas. And so that is where "of course it makes sense to just kill every soldier and/or military member of Hamas" because there is clearly stated intention to repeat the killings they have already conducted. Hamas is very clear that they are at war with Israel. And so it follows that Israel is also at war with Hamas. So it is entirely reasonable for Hamas soldiers to kill Israeli soldiers and it is reasonable for Israeli soldiers to kill Hamas soldiers. But it is not ok for soldiers to kill non-soldiers of course. That's where this whole conundrum gets difficult. If Hamas soldiers try to play on that dynamic by using residential areas for military purposes, where Israel has the choice between bombing a house or allowing rockets to be launched, the only way Israel is able to avoid killing Palestinian non-combatants is to consciously decide to allow Hamas to just keep launching rockets into Israel forever. Clearly that would be silly, since it would be Israel patting Hamas on the head and saying "I understand you are upset, but I am going to take the high road and allow for non-combatant Israelis to be killed". Is it that you are saying Israel is supposed to take the high road or something? Be the bigger man by allowing more attacks like the recent one to happen every so often? Since Hamas is clear that they intend to kill all Jews, not just the ones in settlements and whatnot, taking the high-road is more so choosing to lose a war and be wiped out. What am I misunderstanding? Is Hamas not intending to kill all Jews? So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people? From my perspective his prescription basically boils down to "voluntarily being ethnically cleansed is better than being forcibly genocided so they should choose the former or suffer the latter". Considering he very recently learned leaving isn't actually a choice available to Palestinians even if they wanted to, it's now essentially "Stand in the empty desert without water or food until you die or you're maybe lucky enough to be allowed to leave your homeland/rubble where your home used to be indefinitely (probably forever)".
The whole “nowhere to go” thing is a manufactured problem created by the neighboring nations that view Palestinians as a weapon to use against Israel. They have “nowhere to go” because the nations claiming to be sympathetic prefer Palestinians to remain exactly as they are.
|
Blaming the 'nowhere to go' on the surrounding nations instead of the group doing the displacing is text book victim blaming.
|
On October 20 2023 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 12:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 11:58 Salazarz wrote:On October 20 2023 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 10:20 Salazarz wrote:If we assume 100% of all houses bombed were occupied by people who intended to kill an Israeli the next day, we would all agree it is entirely appropriate to bomb those houses. No, we would not 'all agree' that it is appropriate, what kind of psycho bullshit assumption is that? They're living in a ghetto ran by radical terror group and cut off from virtually all 'normal' interactions of the modern civilized world, obviously they fucking hate the people who bear at least a significant portion of responsibility for their situation, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to just kill them all. I'm pretty sure most folks in North Vietnam would kill an American if they had an opportunity to do so, that doesn't make the bombing campaigns and indiscriminate strafing of their villages any less of a disgusting war crime. When you create an oppressed minority that hates their stronger neighbor, the 'appropriate' response isn't to oppress them even harder until their hate for you reaches a level sufficient to justify straight up exterminating the whole lot, it's to figure out a way to ease the tensions and co-exist with as little violence as possible. When someone is about to kill you, generally people agree it is ethical to defend yourself and/or kill them first. I separated the people who hate Israelis from the people who are actively intending to kill Israelis because you are right to point out that living under Hamas is going to make people think/feel very hatefully, but people shouldn't be killed for being hateful. I think it would only be ethical to kill someone who hates you if you know they were about to kill you. I think you may have misinterpreted my message because I am not equating hate with a guarantee the hate will translate into direct action to kill. In short, hate = no reason to kill. About to kill you = plenty of reason to kill. I agree the ideal path is peaceful coexistence. Since Hamas has clearly stated they intend to repeat their attack and that they want all Jews to be dead, inside and outside of Israel, I think we can confidently say whatever coexisting future they work towards should not include Hamas. And so that is where "of course it makes sense to just kill every soldier and/or military member of Hamas" because there is clearly stated intention to repeat the killings they have already conducted. Hamas is very clear that they are at war with Israel. And so it follows that Israel is also at war with Hamas. So it is entirely reasonable for Hamas soldiers to kill Israeli soldiers and it is reasonable for Israeli soldiers to kill Hamas soldiers. But it is not ok for soldiers to kill non-soldiers of course. That's where this whole conundrum gets difficult. If Hamas soldiers try to play on that dynamic by using residential areas for military purposes, where Israel has the choice between bombing a house or allowing rockets to be launched, the only way Israel is able to avoid killing Palestinian non-combatants is to consciously decide to allow Hamas to just keep launching rockets into Israel forever. Clearly that would be silly, since it would be Israel patting Hamas on the head and saying "I understand you are upset, but I am going to take the high road and allow for non-combatant Israelis to be killed". Is it that you are saying Israel is supposed to take the high road or something? Be the bigger man by allowing more attacks like the recent one to happen every so often? Since Hamas is clear that they intend to kill all Jews, not just the ones in settlements and whatnot, taking the high-road is more so choosing to lose a war and be wiped out. What am I misunderstanding? Is Hamas not intending to kill all Jews? So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people? From my perspective his prescription basically boils down to "voluntarily being ethnically cleansed is better than being forcibly genocided so they should choose the former or suffer the latter". Considering he very recently learned leaving isn't actually a choice available to Palestinians even if they wanted to, it's now essentially "Stand in the empty desert without water or food until you die or you're maybe lucky enough to be allowed to leave your homeland/rubble where your home used to be indefinitely (probably forever)". The whole “nowhere to go” thing is a manufactured problem created by the neighboring nations that view Palestinians as a weapon to use against Israel. They have “nowhere to go” because the nations claiming to be sympathetic prefer Palestinians to remain exactly as they are.
And they only need anywhere to go to because Israel is trying to smoke them out in an ethnic cleansing..
|
On October 20 2023 14:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Watched a 10 minute interview with Ian Bremmer last night. Notable and relevant takeaway was his statement that there are between 30 and 40k combatants on the Gaza strip, rest are civilian. That corresponds to something like 2% of the population there. This, imo, shows two things - that Israel has been better than I've given them credit for at targeting Hamas (assuming the same figure applied for 2014, and that the UN numbers are good), as 35% of their killed were combatants. But it also shows that a huge majority of gazans should be considered civilians (and Israel from 2014 were basically 'ehh naw' on that for men between 16 and 50).
Mohdoo, everybody agrees it is okay to kill someone about to kill you. But how i understand it, if Israel hadn't dropped the ball and concentrated their efforts on the west bank (which again is caused by the settlers), this attack would not have happened.
The attack wasn't the beginning of the conflict between Jews and Palestinians. Non-combatants in war-torn countries become refugees. We can examine both recent and past examples. Normally, neighboring or ideologically similar nations accept refugees from war-torn nations.
Neighboring nations and Hamas have encouraged Palestinians to remain in Gaza rather than flee despite it being a center of military conflict. It is very creepy and weird. And it is very different from other wars. Neighboring countries closing their borders to refugees is super creepy too. Neighboring countries statements have all included mention of Palestinians fighting an important fight and encouraged them to keep giving their lives. This war is abnormally cruel because the non-combatants are being encouraged to die. This bizarre resistance to decoupling military and civilian populations shouldn't be something people pretend is ok or normal.
|
On October 20 2023 14:56 ChristianS wrote:
I, uh, wouldn’t say the messaging has been totally consistent on that front. A commitment to no annexed territory would go a long way.
I doubt they'll ever give that commitment because it ties their hands for very little gain. The only ones who want an occupation are the far right parties but they've been effectively sidelined when Gantz entered the coalition and responsibility for the war was transferred to the war cabinet.
|
The most common interaction in this thread appears to be people ignoring every single post that describes how Israel isn't just defending itself, and then demanding what else Israel is supposed to do other than self-defense and why the opponent is so opposed to self-defense.
|
On October 20 2023 15:54 Oukka wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 12:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 11:58 Salazarz wrote:On October 20 2023 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 10:20 Salazarz wrote:If we assume 100% of all houses bombed were occupied by people who intended to kill an Israeli the next day, we would all agree it is entirely appropriate to bomb those houses. No, we would not 'all agree' that it is appropriate, what kind of psycho bullshit assumption is that? They're living in a ghetto ran by radical terror group and cut off from virtually all 'normal' interactions of the modern civilized world, obviously they fucking hate the people who bear at least a significant portion of responsibility for their situation, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to just kill them all. I'm pretty sure most folks in North Vietnam would kill an American if they had an opportunity to do so, that doesn't make the bombing campaigns and indiscriminate strafing of their villages any less of a disgusting war crime. When you create an oppressed minority that hates their stronger neighbor, the 'appropriate' response isn't to oppress them even harder until their hate for you reaches a level sufficient to justify straight up exterminating the whole lot, it's to figure out a way to ease the tensions and co-exist with as little violence as possible. When someone is about to kill you, generally people agree it is ethical to defend yourself and/or kill them first. I separated the people who hate Israelis from the people who are actively intending to kill Israelis because you are right to point out that living under Hamas is going to make people think/feel very hatefully, but people shouldn't be killed for being hateful. I think it would only be ethical to kill someone who hates you if you know they were about to kill you. I think you may have misinterpreted my message because I am not equating hate with a guarantee the hate will translate into direct action to kill. In short, hate = no reason to kill. About to kill you = plenty of reason to kill. I agree the ideal path is peaceful coexistence. Since Hamas has clearly stated they intend to repeat their attack and that they want all Jews to be dead, inside and outside of Israel, I think we can confidently say whatever coexisting future they work towards should not include Hamas. And so that is where "of course it makes sense to just kill every soldier and/or military member of Hamas" because there is clearly stated intention to repeat the killings they have already conducted. Hamas is very clear that they are at war with Israel. And so it follows that Israel is also at war with Hamas. So it is entirely reasonable for Hamas soldiers to kill Israeli soldiers and it is reasonable for Israeli soldiers to kill Hamas soldiers. But it is not ok for soldiers to kill non-soldiers of course. That's where this whole conundrum gets difficult. If Hamas soldiers try to play on that dynamic by using residential areas for military purposes, where Israel has the choice between bombing a house or allowing rockets to be launched, the only way Israel is able to avoid killing Palestinian non-combatants is to consciously decide to allow Hamas to just keep launching rockets into Israel forever. Clearly that would be silly, since it would be Israel patting Hamas on the head and saying "I understand you are upset, but I am going to take the high road and allow for non-combatant Israelis to be killed". Is it that you are saying Israel is supposed to take the high road or something? Be the bigger man by allowing more attacks like the recent one to happen every so often? Since Hamas is clear that they intend to kill all Jews, not just the ones in settlements and whatnot, taking the high-road is more so choosing to lose a war and be wiped out. What am I misunderstanding? Is Hamas not intending to kill all Jews? So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people? From my perspective his prescription basically boils down to "voluntarily being ethnically cleansed is better than being forcibly genocided so they should choose the former or suffer the latter". Considering he very recently learned leaving isn't actually a choice available to Palestinians even if they wanted to, it's now essentially "Stand in the empty desert without water or food until you die or you're maybe lucky enough to be allowed to leave your homeland/rubble where your home used to be indefinitely (probably forever)". The whole “nowhere to go” thing is a manufactured problem created by the neighboring nations that view Palestinians as a weapon to use against Israel. They have “nowhere to go” because the nations claiming to be sympathetic prefer Palestinians to remain exactly as they are. And they only need anywhere to go to because Israel is trying to smoke them out in an ethnic cleansing..
Which is happening because Hamas has been continuously launching terrorist attacks at them for the last decade. We can keep going around in circles about this forever, but it always lands back on "Nothing can happen as long as Hamas continues to exist". Just claiming "Israel should leave them alone!" is shortsighted and naive. They simply aren't able to even if they wanted, as the results would be more deaths, just their own instead of Palestinian. I'm not going to pretend to claim I support everything Israel has done, far from it. But at this very moment in time, their hands are tied.
On October 20 2023 17:09 Nebuchad wrote:
The most common interaction in this thread appears to be people ignoring every single post that describes how Israel isn't just defending itself, and then demanding what else Israel is supposed to do other than self-defense and why the opponent is so opposed to self-defense.
Go ahead them. What is "Israel suppose to do"? I have yet to see a single good solution from anyone.
|
On October 20 2023 17:56 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 15:54 Oukka wrote:On October 20 2023 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 12:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 11:58 Salazarz wrote:On October 20 2023 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 10:20 Salazarz wrote:If we assume 100% of all houses bombed were occupied by people who intended to kill an Israeli the next day, we would all agree it is entirely appropriate to bomb those houses. No, we would not 'all agree' that it is appropriate, what kind of psycho bullshit assumption is that? They're living in a ghetto ran by radical terror group and cut off from virtually all 'normal' interactions of the modern civilized world, obviously they fucking hate the people who bear at least a significant portion of responsibility for their situation, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to just kill them all. I'm pretty sure most folks in North Vietnam would kill an American if they had an opportunity to do so, that doesn't make the bombing campaigns and indiscriminate strafing of their villages any less of a disgusting war crime. When you create an oppressed minority that hates their stronger neighbor, the 'appropriate' response isn't to oppress them even harder until their hate for you reaches a level sufficient to justify straight up exterminating the whole lot, it's to figure out a way to ease the tensions and co-exist with as little violence as possible. When someone is about to kill you, generally people agree it is ethical to defend yourself and/or kill them first. I separated the people who hate Israelis from the people who are actively intending to kill Israelis because you are right to point out that living under Hamas is going to make people think/feel very hatefully, but people shouldn't be killed for being hateful. I think it would only be ethical to kill someone who hates you if you know they were about to kill you. I think you may have misinterpreted my message because I am not equating hate with a guarantee the hate will translate into direct action to kill. In short, hate = no reason to kill. About to kill you = plenty of reason to kill. I agree the ideal path is peaceful coexistence. Since Hamas has clearly stated they intend to repeat their attack and that they want all Jews to be dead, inside and outside of Israel, I think we can confidently say whatever coexisting future they work towards should not include Hamas. And so that is where "of course it makes sense to just kill every soldier and/or military member of Hamas" because there is clearly stated intention to repeat the killings they have already conducted. Hamas is very clear that they are at war with Israel. And so it follows that Israel is also at war with Hamas. So it is entirely reasonable for Hamas soldiers to kill Israeli soldiers and it is reasonable for Israeli soldiers to kill Hamas soldiers. But it is not ok for soldiers to kill non-soldiers of course. That's where this whole conundrum gets difficult. If Hamas soldiers try to play on that dynamic by using residential areas for military purposes, where Israel has the choice between bombing a house or allowing rockets to be launched, the only way Israel is able to avoid killing Palestinian non-combatants is to consciously decide to allow Hamas to just keep launching rockets into Israel forever. Clearly that would be silly, since it would be Israel patting Hamas on the head and saying "I understand you are upset, but I am going to take the high road and allow for non-combatant Israelis to be killed". Is it that you are saying Israel is supposed to take the high road or something? Be the bigger man by allowing more attacks like the recent one to happen every so often? Since Hamas is clear that they intend to kill all Jews, not just the ones in settlements and whatnot, taking the high-road is more so choosing to lose a war and be wiped out. What am I misunderstanding? Is Hamas not intending to kill all Jews? So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people? From my perspective his prescription basically boils down to "voluntarily being ethnically cleansed is better than being forcibly genocided so they should choose the former or suffer the latter". Considering he very recently learned leaving isn't actually a choice available to Palestinians even if they wanted to, it's now essentially "Stand in the empty desert without water or food until you die or you're maybe lucky enough to be allowed to leave your homeland/rubble where your home used to be indefinitely (probably forever)". The whole “nowhere to go” thing is a manufactured problem created by the neighboring nations that view Palestinians as a weapon to use against Israel. They have “nowhere to go” because the nations claiming to be sympathetic prefer Palestinians to remain exactly as they are. And they only need anywhere to go to because Israel is trying to smoke them out in an ethnic cleansing.. Which is happening because Hamas has been continuously launching terrorist attacks at them for the last decade. We can keep going around in circles about this forever, but it always lands back on "Nothing can happen as long as Hamas continues to exist". Just claiming "Israel should leave them alone!" is shortsighted and naive. They simply aren't able to even if they wanted, as the results would be more deaths, just their own instead of Palestinian. I'm not going to pretend to claim I support everything Israel has done, far from it. But at this very moment in time, their hands are tied. Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 17:09 Nebuchad wrote:
The most common interaction in this thread appears to be people ignoring every single post that describes how Israel isn't just defending itself, and then demanding what else Israel is supposed to do other than self-defense and why the opponent is so opposed to self-defense. Go ahead them. What is "Israel suppose to do"? I have yet to see a single good solution from anyone.
Let their respective gods sort them out? Best I got on short notice.
|
On October 20 2023 17:56 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 15:54 Oukka wrote:On October 20 2023 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 12:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 11:58 Salazarz wrote:On October 20 2023 10:45 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2023 10:20 Salazarz wrote:If we assume 100% of all houses bombed were occupied by people who intended to kill an Israeli the next day, we would all agree it is entirely appropriate to bomb those houses. No, we would not 'all agree' that it is appropriate, what kind of psycho bullshit assumption is that? They're living in a ghetto ran by radical terror group and cut off from virtually all 'normal' interactions of the modern civilized world, obviously they fucking hate the people who bear at least a significant portion of responsibility for their situation, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to just kill them all. I'm pretty sure most folks in North Vietnam would kill an American if they had an opportunity to do so, that doesn't make the bombing campaigns and indiscriminate strafing of their villages any less of a disgusting war crime. When you create an oppressed minority that hates their stronger neighbor, the 'appropriate' response isn't to oppress them even harder until their hate for you reaches a level sufficient to justify straight up exterminating the whole lot, it's to figure out a way to ease the tensions and co-exist with as little violence as possible. When someone is about to kill you, generally people agree it is ethical to defend yourself and/or kill them first. I separated the people who hate Israelis from the people who are actively intending to kill Israelis because you are right to point out that living under Hamas is going to make people think/feel very hatefully, but people shouldn't be killed for being hateful. I think it would only be ethical to kill someone who hates you if you know they were about to kill you. I think you may have misinterpreted my message because I am not equating hate with a guarantee the hate will translate into direct action to kill. In short, hate = no reason to kill. About to kill you = plenty of reason to kill. I agree the ideal path is peaceful coexistence. Since Hamas has clearly stated they intend to repeat their attack and that they want all Jews to be dead, inside and outside of Israel, I think we can confidently say whatever coexisting future they work towards should not include Hamas. And so that is where "of course it makes sense to just kill every soldier and/or military member of Hamas" because there is clearly stated intention to repeat the killings they have already conducted. Hamas is very clear that they are at war with Israel. And so it follows that Israel is also at war with Hamas. So it is entirely reasonable for Hamas soldiers to kill Israeli soldiers and it is reasonable for Israeli soldiers to kill Hamas soldiers. But it is not ok for soldiers to kill non-soldiers of course. That's where this whole conundrum gets difficult. If Hamas soldiers try to play on that dynamic by using residential areas for military purposes, where Israel has the choice between bombing a house or allowing rockets to be launched, the only way Israel is able to avoid killing Palestinian non-combatants is to consciously decide to allow Hamas to just keep launching rockets into Israel forever. Clearly that would be silly, since it would be Israel patting Hamas on the head and saying "I understand you are upset, but I am going to take the high road and allow for non-combatant Israelis to be killed". Is it that you are saying Israel is supposed to take the high road or something? Be the bigger man by allowing more attacks like the recent one to happen every so often? Since Hamas is clear that they intend to kill all Jews, not just the ones in settlements and whatnot, taking the high-road is more so choosing to lose a war and be wiped out. What am I misunderstanding? Is Hamas not intending to kill all Jews? So what is Palestine supposed to do, in your opinion? Take the high road and just watch as Israel colonizes more and more of their land and shoots more and more of their people? From my perspective his prescription basically boils down to "voluntarily being ethnically cleansed is better than being forcibly genocided so they should choose the former or suffer the latter". Considering he very recently learned leaving isn't actually a choice available to Palestinians even if they wanted to, it's now essentially "Stand in the empty desert without water or food until you die or you're maybe lucky enough to be allowed to leave your homeland/rubble where your home used to be indefinitely (probably forever)". The whole “nowhere to go” thing is a manufactured problem created by the neighboring nations that view Palestinians as a weapon to use against Israel. They have “nowhere to go” because the nations claiming to be sympathetic prefer Palestinians to remain exactly as they are. And they only need anywhere to go to because Israel is trying to smoke them out in an ethnic cleansing.. Which is happening because Hamas has been continuously launching terrorist attacks at them for the last decade. We can keep going around in circles about this forever, but it always lands back on "Nothing can happen as long as Hamas continues to exist". Just claiming "Israel should leave them alone!" is shortsighted and naive. They simply aren't able to even if they wanted, as the results would be more deaths, just their own instead of Palestinian. I'm not going to pretend to claim I support everything Israel has done, far from it. But at this very moment in time, their hands are tied. Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 17:09 Nebuchad wrote:
The most common interaction in this thread appears to be people ignoring every single post that describes how Israel isn't just defending itself, and then demanding what else Israel is supposed to do other than self-defense and why the opponent is so opposed to self-defense. Go ahead them. What is "Israel suppose to do"? I have yet to see a single good solution from anyone.
Israel has been illegally occupying Palestinian territory before Hamas existed. Just like other Palestinian movements have been illegally attacking Israel before Hamas existed. Destroying Hamas does not solve any of the underlying problems, though it would likely improve quality of life for both Gazan Palestinians and Israeli Jews in the short/medium term.
My simple answer is that Israel could attempt to follow international law and facilitate the existence of an actual Palestinian state rather than keep on creeping further into the Palestinian territory. Simultaneously Israel can (and should!) continue to protect itself against Hamas and similar groups, but without collective punishment against 2+ million people (or 5+ if we include West Bank) for actions of the 30-40 000 Hamas terrorists (number floated earlier).
Edit:
Related, has Israel indicated anything about it's 'endgame' objectives? I think the reason the ground attack is still delayed has to do with the lack of political strategy/solutions for AFTER Hamas is out of power in Gaza. Israel seems unlikely to want to directly assume admin/governance responsibility over Gaza. At the same time they probably realise that they cannot just roll in and roll out once military goals are met, as this might just result in Hamas being replaced by more anarchy or "Hamas 2" and rockets would continue to be fired after some time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
