|
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 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.
I mean could there be a better illustration of my post than this
|
The few times a palestine state/2 state solution was close, the palestinians killed it. That solution is dead.
Why would Israel trust anything Hamas/the Palestinians "offer" them? The track record of palestine of honoring agreements is horrible. Not that Israel hasn't and isn't doing it's fair share of obviously bad acts (westbank/settlements).
At this point, I don't see what a feasible solution even could be.
|
On October 20 2023 18:20 Oukka wrote:
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). Just saying that from now on Palestinian state is an actual state will probably not stop Hamas attacks - or will it?
If not, then when Hamas terrorists attack and then hide among civilian population, what is a good way to retaliate without harming those civilians? There will be a war between two states unless attacks stop.
So you're saying Israel should facilitate the existance of a state that will be in a state of war with Israel from day one probably?
Or do you mean - after Hamas is destroyed / removed from power and terrorist attacks stopped?
|
On October 20 2023 18:20 Oukka wrote:
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.
They've given a hint that the most cynical and obvious version of plans one could give are going to come to life. I.e., this is just another step in the end-game that has been evident for decades: total ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
See the following quote from a recent Times of Israel article
Foreign Minister Eli Cohen tells Army Radio, “At the end of this war, not only will Hamas no longer be in Gaza, but the territory of Gaza will also decrease.”
As for exactly what's going to happen to get there, I haven't seen anything.
|
On October 20 2023 18:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 17:56 Excludos wrote: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. 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. I mean could there be a better illustration of my post than this
I mean, could there be a better illustration of my post than you literally refusing to answer my one question?
Your name is now Netanyahu, what do you do? How do you solve this situation that you clearly say Israel can do something about. Go
|
On October 20 2023 19:26 Excludos wrote:
Your name is now Netanyahu, what do you do? How do you solve this situation that you clearly say Israel can do something about. Go If I remember/understand correctly, Neb already answered this saying that - paraphrasing a bit - if they were Netanyahu they would do the same thing, because Netanyahu is a fascist and this is what fascist do.
It's not a trivial question to answer, what would you do in someone's shoes - because it's already loaded with lots of details of how they ended up being where/how they are, and these details affect everything.
|
On October 20 2023 19:26 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 18:26 Nebuchad wrote:On October 20 2023 17:56 Excludos wrote: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. 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. I mean could there be a better illustration of my post than this I mean, could there be a better illustration of my post than you literally refusing to answer my one question? Your name is now Netanyahu, what do you do? How do you solve this situation that you clearly say Israel can do something about. Go
I already answered the question. What Israel should do is continue their genocide and take as much of the Palestinians' land as they can without the international community stopping them. You may have thought I wasn't serious but I was, that's what they should do. They're not idiots and they're going to do it, so clearly they agree with my assessment.
If that's not the answer you wanted you should have asked a better question.
|
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.
I strongly disagree, it's not manufactured at all. It's a combination of being poor, having large family ties, little access to resources, few to no job opportunities and facing discrimination and strong skepticism outside Gaza, and often having ties to Hamas. And all that isn't even during heightened times of conflict. Getting out of Gaza is difficult, establishing a new life is much harder, and getting the whole family out is practically impossible. No, this is not manufactured.
|
On October 20 2023 18:28 ZeroByte13 wrote:
So you're saying Israel should facilitate the existance of a state that will be in a state of war with Israel from day one probably?
Or do you mean - after Hamas is destroyed / removed from power and terrorist attacks stopped?
This I think is a key question, and it's only part of the whole problem. There's also the issue that Israel can't just "create" Palestine for the Palestinians, that'd be absurd. It would have to be negotiated by a neutral arbiter like the UN. Then there's the question of which Palestinians and which Israelis should be invited to the negotiation table. This alone is an enormous task that could end all negotiations before they even start. Then there are third parties that would work to undermine negotiations.
I'm fairly certain that all of these things have been happening behind the curtains for years. Some people on various sides - Israelis, Palestinians, and others - must've been making efforts which have been fruitless. Whoever runs the show - and that'd be the Netanjahu administration as well as Hamas - controls the direction of all things.
Which leads to the second question if Hamas is destroyed, will fresh negotiations yield results? I think some of the involved parties would feel like they're under Israel's thumb, especially under the Netanjahu administration. With Hamas out of the picture, would Israel be any more likely to make concessions? What exactly would that look like, and who would agree to that? Especially now that Israel's nationhood has once again been put to the test, the tensions might well continue to undermine negotiations.
I think people are right who say that Netanjahu must go before anything can change. I think the idea of destroying Hamas and then making changes is too simplistic.
|
On October 20 2023 18:28 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 18:20 Oukka wrote:
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). Just saying that from now on Palestinian state is an actual state will probably not stop Hamas attacks - or will it? If not, then when Hamas terrorists attack and then hide among civilian population, what is a good way to retaliate without harming those civilians? There will be a war between two states unless attacks stop. So you're saying Israel should facilitate the existance of a state that will be in a state of war with Israel from day one probably? Or do you mean - after Hamas is destroyed / removed from power and terrorist attacks stopped?
After Hamas, yes. I don't think it is particularly reasonable/likely that Israel would want to (or feel pressured to) negotiate with a party that is recognized as a terrorist organisation by all of Israels allies and backers.
Terrorist attacks probably won't be stopped even if Hamas is unarmed/destroyed/removed from power, because it's not the only body behind them and the underlying grievances exist still and will maybe always exist.
Of course it's more than signing a paper that says Palestine is a state, but that would be one step. There has to be a functioning economy so that people have actually some hope of improving their circumstances. Palestine is likely to need a lot of international assistance with things like training a police force or setting up government infrastructure etc.
And maybe there would be a war on 'day 1 of the Palestinian state', but if so I think that's a failure of every party, including Israel, to actually find a compromise solution that is acceptable to a sufficiently high number of people.
In general I think that to make any progress there wouls have to be some visible and public concessions to the Palestinians, because if they never gain anything via negotiations/politics, then they have no reason to believe in those and resorting to violence becomes more attractive. That might require an political shift in Israel (removal of Netanjahu as discussed above) as well as the more obvious need of getting rid of Hamas in Gaza.
|
On October 20 2023 19:18 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 18:20 Oukka wrote:
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. They've given a hint that the most cynical and obvious version of plans one could give are going to come to life. I.e., this is just another step in the end-game that has been evident for decades: total ethnic cleansing of Palestine. See the following quote from a recent Times of Israel article Show nested quote +
Foreign Minister Eli Cohen tells Army Radio, “At the end of this war, not only will Hamas no longer be in Gaza, but the territory of Gaza will also decrease.”
As for exactly what's going to happen to get there, I haven't seen anything.
From what I've read the idea is to create some kind of dmz at the border areas. Not that sinister. The hyperbolic claims of ethnic cleansing and genocide aren't helpful. If that has been their intent for decades they could've just pushed them out after their earlier conflicts.
|
EDIT: whatever, not worth it.
|
On October 20 2023 12:20 Mohdoo 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? 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?
1. West Bank folks are pretty distanced from Hamas. That doesn't stop Israel from slowly but steadily pushing into their land and killing their people on a weekly basis.
2. Throughout history, lots of 'terrorist' groups that were vastly outgunned by occupying forces have managed to achieve at least some of their objectives in ways not too dissimilar from what Hamas is doing. Probably the closest example would be the IRA in Ireland.
I honestly don't know what each of these groups 'should' do, especially since I don't think their choices are particularly impactful either way. Israel is holding all the cards here, and Palestinians can only react to Israel's actions. Given that Israel doesn't seem to be interested in honest negotiations for peace and considering the living conditions in the Gaza strip, I'm not surprised they resort to terrorism and I think expecting terror attacks will stop if Israel just kills more people there is rather unrealistic.
Just saying that from now on Palestinian state is an actual state will probably not stop Hamas attacks - or will it?
If not, then when Hamas terrorists attack and then hide among civilian population, what is a good way to retaliate without harming those civilians? There will be a war between two states unless attacks stop.
So you're saying Israel should facilitate the existance of a state that will be in a state of war with Israel from day one probably?
Or do you mean - after Hamas is destroyed / removed from power and terrorist attacks stopped?
If Palestine was an actual state, with defined borders, actual foreign relations, trade, and most importantly, potential for developing land in a place they consider their own and a future they can look forward to, then you'd have more things to negotiate over. As I mentioned before, I sincerely believe that the best way to stop people from becoming radical terrorists is to give them something to live for, and that is what people in the Gaza strip lack right now.
|
On October 20 2023 22:03 Salazarz wrote:
As I mentioned before, I sincerely believe that the best way to stop people from becoming radical terrorists is to give them something to live for, and that is what people in the Gaza strip lack right now. And this is absolutely correct, I think - it's just that nobody can really expect this to happen before Hamas is removed.
I don't know whether or not Israel plans to do this after Hamas is removed, but surely nobody will do this before that.
|
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.
So they can't kill terrorists because it was they should have seen this coming? You realize that that is victim blaming, right?
Btw, it's not like they had no defenses. They had a huge border fence and military observation posts. If the listening post hadn't been hacked, this would likely have been stopped. Israel wouldn't have assumed Hamas had the capability to do that. Blaming Israel for not having impervious security is silly.
|
On October 20 2023 15:53 Mikau wrote:
Blaming the 'nowhere to go' on the surrounding nations instead of the group doing the displacing is text book victim blaming.
Unless Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon are the victims of this crisis somehow, I don't really see how that is victim blaming.
Now when people say things like:
Every country who accepted large numbers of Palestinian refugees experienced terrorism, civil unrest, and eventually civil war/revolution at the hands of those refugees. Therefore the reason they have no real friends in the region is because they burned all those bridges by having such a propensity for violence.
That might be victim blaming.
|
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..
By which you mean, Israel already gave them the land, so they're obviously ok if they stay, but Israel has to destroy the terrorists organization Hamas and would rather not kill civilians while doing it. Therefore it's best for all involved that the civilians leave the war zone. That ethnic cleansing?
|
On October 20 2023 23:24 Cerebrate1 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.. By which you mean, Israel already gave them the land, so they're obviously ok if they stay, but Israel has to destroy the terrorists organization Hamas and would rather not kill civilians while doing it. Therefore it's best for all involved that the civilians leave the war zone. That ethnic cleansing?
I was told in the last page or so that there was no way Israel would make a strong commitment to letting people return after the war and not annexing territory, because it would tie their hands too much. But it would surely help with convincing civilians to evacuate if “not killing civilians” is really a primary aim of theirs. Do you think they’ll make such a commitment? Do you think they should?
|
On October 20 2023 19:46 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 19:26 Excludos wrote:On October 20 2023 18:26 Nebuchad wrote:On October 20 2023 17:56 Excludos wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I mean could there be a better illustration of my post than this I mean, could there be a better illustration of my post than you literally refusing to answer my one question? Your name is now Netanyahu, what do you do? How do you solve this situation that you clearly say Israel can do something about. Go I already answered the question. What Israel should do is continue their genocide and take as much of the Palestinians' land as they can without the international community stopping them. You may have thought I wasn't serious but I was, that's what they should do. They're not idiots and they're going to do it, so clearly they agree with my assessment. If that's not the answer you wanted you should have asked a better question.
So what you are saying is,
1. You would be horrible and immoral as a world leader.
2. You believe that Israel will act like you would in that situation.
3. Therefore Israel is bad.
The reason people are ignoring your posts is you are not interested in productive forward thinking discussion. You just want to sling mud at Israel.
Re: genocide. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't see my post about how absurd it is to claim Israel is now or has ever committed genocide. So here it is again for reference:
On October 17 2023 03:38 Cerebrate1 wrote:I just want to sidebar a few important points before I respond to some of the posts here. Genocide as defined by Wordnik: The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group. Here is the population of world Jewery over the century. https://www.seder-olam.info/seder-olam-jewish-population-XXc.JPGSee that massive down spike in population? That is an attempted genocide by the Nazis. Here is the population growth of the Palestinian people since the State of Israel was formed. https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4QXgZt5_L9M/XB_cN-U9ALI/AAAAAAAADOw/4HmXpixDbV8UK4bEO-GJTiDk-xlGwbwRwCLcBGAs/s1600/Palestine2.png
I say growth, because it has indeed grown. Quite a lot. Quite consistently. There are really 2 possible explanations. Israel is hopelessly incompetent at committing genocide. OR they aren't trying to commit genocide and never have been. As to the current conflict, Israel makes automated phone calls to residents of buildings before it bombs them so they can evacuate. Then they drop low yield roof knockers a few minutes before so residents have a last chance to flee if they ignored the phone calls. Then they destroy a building that is hopefully empty of inhabitants but usually full of Hamas rockets. The results speak for themselves as well. As of early yesterday, Israel hit over 3,600 targets. Hamas published Palestinian death toll was only around 1,500. That's less than one death per target. Those are some incredibly empty buildings to destroy if your goal is genocide. Keep in mind that these are precision missiles, so they are hitting what they want when they want it. If they just wanted to kill people, they could have gotten those kills with about a dozen missiles instead of 3,600.
|
On October 20 2023 19:46 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 19:26 Excludos wrote:On October 20 2023 18:26 Nebuchad wrote:On October 20 2023 17:56 Excludos wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I mean could there be a better illustration of my post than this I mean, could there be a better illustration of my post than you literally refusing to answer my one question? Your name is now Netanyahu, what do you do? How do you solve this situation that you clearly say Israel can do something about. Go I already answered the question. What Israel should do is continue their genocide and take as much of the Palestinians' land as they can without the international community stopping them. You may have thought I wasn't serious but I was, that's what they should do. They're not idiots and they're going to do it, so clearly they agree with my assessment. If that's not the answer you wanted you should have asked a better question.
It's really difficult to tell if you're being sarcastic or not, and if not, I don't understand how your opinion lines up with every other argument you make.
But fair enough, if you, by claiming "Israel has a solution" means "Genocide", then yes, they do indeed have (and is currently performing) that solution. In a bit less ridiculous wording, I don't even disagree with you. Israel is doing the only thing they can do atm, because as long as Hamas exists there is no other realistic option. But I wouldn't argue that they are gleefully choosing to do it; as long as Hamas exists, their hands are very much tied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
