|
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 23:28 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 23:24 Cerebrate1 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.. 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?
I did not say anything about a right to return. As for the annexation I said that because I thought a DMZ can be considered annexation of territory but I might be mistaken.
|
On October 21 2023 00:13 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 19:46 Nebuchad wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
It lines up with my other arguments because I would never be the leader of a fascist state, as I think doing a fascism is reprehensible. So as a leader I would never have led my country to be in such a position. But if you're insisting on getting an answer to the question then I can give it to you.
|
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? One problem with your reasoning is that Israel objects to Palestinians right to self-defense against Israel's illegal occupation/settlements regardless of whether Hamas exists or not.
|
On October 20 2023 20:03 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I feel like the best historical examples of building nations into new things from the outside are Germany and Japan after WW2. America guided fascist enemy countries into blooming ally democracies. That is probably the best long term solution to this conflict, to try to emulate that.
The two sticking points that differentiate Gaza with Germany/Japan is that the latter surrendered unconditionally and willingly allowed America to reform their societies. If no Gaza leadership accepts an Israeli take over, no amount of goodwill from Israelis will be able to shake Gaza out of it's fascism.
The second is that no other outside forces interfered with America rebuilding West Germany and Japan. They had a free hand and full external support to fix things as they saw fit. By Gaza, there are multiple nations in the region who could and would interfere as much as possible to keep the encouraging terrorists to grow there.
I don't think Netanyahu is the right man to apply a Marshall Plan to Gaza, but even if you had someone like Ganz, I think it's a doomed effort unless and until you remove the two problems above.
|
On October 20 2023 23:28 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 23:24 Cerebrate1 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.. 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?
Realistically, no settler is going to set up shop in territory from Gaza even if they would annex it (it's too dangerous). What they are talking about is a DMZ. And that DMZ will be with Gaza territory, not Israeli, because they don't want to reward Hamas for Oct 7.
They have made statements that fleeing residents can return when the war is over. I don't think they'll make more commitments than that though because, despite the rhetoric, it's not clear to me that they will completely destroy Hamas. If not, then they will have to make some kind of bargain to end the war. If they've already unilaterally promised to give everything away, they've thrown away their bargaining chips for nothing. What they probably will (and should) do is say everyone can come back if we get all the hostages back or something. That is, they really are happy giving the land back anyways, but they have to be able to trade something to get their own people back.
|
On October 20 2023 22:03 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 12:20 Mohdoo 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? 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? 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.
Are you disputing whether or not Hamas is a terrorist group? Are you familiar with the videos they posted from their recent attack? They themselves glorified some extremely heinous stuff. You seem like you've been tiptoeing around the idea that you view Hamas in a positive light, but these little quotes around the word terrorist are making it seem like you may actually sympathize with them. Do you view Hamas in a positive light?
|
On October 21 2023 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 23:24 Cerebrate1 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.. 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? One problem with your reasoning is that Israel objects to Palestinians right to self-defense against Israel's illegal occupation/settlements regardless of whether Hamas exists or not.
Oukka's statement about them needing somewhere to go (clearly talking about Gazans, because they are the ones moving around right now) has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing.
If other things are ethnic cleansing and what Palestinians should do here are different questions. But displacing Gazans so they don't get shot in the crossfire is not ethnic cleansing.
To prove that, you should know that Israel is doing the exact same thing to Jews near the conflict zones. It has evacuated civilians near both Gaza and Lebanon to protect them. They aren't "ethnic cleansing" the Jews they relocate during the war and they aren't doing it to the Gazans either.
|
Reminder that said man has lived in Qatar for over a decade, and before that lived Syria. And hasn't lived in the West Bank for 56 years...
|
On October 20 2023 22:48 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yes, being forced to take in millions of people forcefully removed from their homeland would make them victims.
|
|
|
On October 21 2023 01:25 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 00:29 Nebuchad wrote:On October 21 2023 00:13 Excludos wrote:On October 20 2023 19:46 Nebuchad wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It lines up with my other arguments because I would never be the leader of a fascist state, as I think doing a fascism is reprehensible. So as a leader I would never have led my country to be in such a position. But if you're insisting on getting an answer to the question then I can give it to you. Would you be able to give us your definitions of a fascist state and genocide, because when I look up the definitions they do not match Israel or what is going on. Otherwise your posts come off as disingenuous and like you are just looking to bicker.
Sure, I use fascist as a descriptive term for governments that are overall far right in nature, which can include or not include a bunch of specific characteristics but if you view things systemically what they're going to do is reinforce specific social hierarchies, which will lead to the oppression of the minority groups that are believed to be at the bottom of those social hierarchies (in the case of Israel, the Palestinian people). There are other characteristics that apply to Israel as well, such as ultranationalism, militarism, some amount of suppression of opposition, and subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation, but those wouldn't be my focus.
As for genocide, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group", so I feel entirely within my right to describe attempts to do ethnic cleansing as genocidal in nature, and I must confess I don't really care if you (specifically) disagree.
|
Norway28727 Posts
That was actually pretty fascinating. I'll gladly admit that, due to what I assume is my internalized prejudice, I was very surprised to see this type of interview led by a woman. The answers are largely terrifying (if anything because of how casually some of those numbers are cited), but the questions are really good.
|
On October 21 2023 01:09 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2023 23:24 Cerebrate1 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.. 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? One problem with your reasoning is that Israel objects to Palestinians right to self-defense against Israel's illegal occupation/settlements regardless of whether Hamas exists or not. Oukka's statement about them needing somewhere to go (clearly talking about Gazans, because they are the ones moving around right now) has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. If other things are ethnic cleansing and what Palestinians should do here are different questions. But displacing Gazans so they don't get shot in the crossfire is not ethnic cleansing. To prove that, you should know that Israel is doing the exact same thing to Jews near the conflict zones. It has evacuated civilians near both Gaza and Lebanon to protect them. They aren't "ethnic cleansing" the Jews they relocate during the war and they aren't doing it to the Gazans either.
It's not (just) a critique of that specific response, it's of your core reasoning.
Israel's open intentions are to forcibly expel the entire Palestinian population of Gaza into Egypt. It's ethnic cleansing.
What's still up in the air (less so each day the siege continues and the US blocks calls/UN resolutions for a ceasefire) is if Israel will choose to genocide the Palestinians of Gaza instead.
|
|
|
On October 21 2023 01:55 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 01:43 Nebuchad wrote:On October 21 2023 01:25 JimmiC wrote:On October 21 2023 00:29 Nebuchad wrote:On October 21 2023 00:13 Excludos wrote:On October 20 2023 19:46 Nebuchad wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It lines up with my other arguments because I would never be the leader of a fascist state, as I think doing a fascism is reprehensible. So as a leader I would never have led my country to be in such a position. But if you're insisting on getting an answer to the question then I can give it to you. Would you be able to give us your definitions of a fascist state and genocide, because when I look up the definitions they do not match Israel or what is going on. Otherwise your posts come off as disingenuous and like you are just looking to bicker. Sure, I use fascist as a descriptive term for governments that are overall far right in nature, which can include or not include a bunch of specific characteristics but if you view things systemically what they're going to do is reinforce specific social hierarchies, which will lead to the oppression of the minority groups that are believed to be at the bottom of those social hierarchies (in the case of Israel, the Palestinian people). There are other characteristics that apply to Israel as well, such as ultranationalism, militarism, some amount of suppression of opposition, and subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation, but those wouldn't be my focus. As for genocide, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group", so I feel entirely within my right to describe attempts to do ethnic cleansing as genocidal in nature, and I must confess I don't really care if you (specifically) disagree. You are using Fascism wrong, a government can be rightwing and not fascist, it would be like calling Canada communist. The obvious but not only missing characteristic is authoritarianism. If they wanted to commit Genocide they would be acting as Hamas did. They have stated they want the civilians to leave while they fight Hamas.
I take note of your criticism but I won't change my ways.
|
|
|
Two hostages released by Hamas
Hamas has released two U.S. hostages - a mother and her daughter - "for humanitarian reasons" in response to Qatari mediation efforts, Hamas armed wing spokesman Abu Ubaida said in a statement on Friday.
www.reuters.com
|
On October 21 2023 00:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2023 22:03 Salazarz wrote:On October 20 2023 12:20 Mohdoo 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? 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? 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. Are you disputing whether or not Hamas is a terrorist group? Are you familiar with the videos they posted from their recent attack? They themselves glorified some extremely heinous stuff. You seem like you've been tiptoeing around the idea that you view Hamas in a positive light, but these little quotes around the word terrorist are making it seem like you may actually sympathize with them. Do you view Hamas in a positive light?
I think he's referring to the fact that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Hamas has done some extremely heinous shit. And I think there's other things that sets Hamas apart from "traditional" freedom fighters: they don't seem to have a cause other than murdering infidels. They oppose the Oslo accords and any kind of compromise in a similar way that IS or Al'quaeda have clear uncompromising goals. I don't think you can negotiate with them and that sets them apart from groups like IRA, ETA, or even FARC or Shining Path. Their absolutist stance and brutish methods make negotiations pointless. However, Hamas only has power due to the circumstances Israel imposes. Desperate people are going to grab onto desperate methods. And just as in the past, Israel is choosing to escalate violence rather than trying to deescalate. Someone mentioned that Israel cannot back down, because that would allow Hamas to claim a win. But Hamas has already won. They have made Israel look weak and unprepared. They have slaughtered the most infidels in any strike in 50 years. Israel striking back doesn't lead to victory, it just leads to more bloodshed. Sure, they can no doubt use their massive military force to flatten Gaza. Hell, they can probably flatten Gaza, West Bank and Beirut all at the same time. It'll no doubt lead to a pretty photo op of Netanyahu standing in front of an aircraft carrier with a big banner to declare mission accomplished. And then a new cycle of violence will start as the little brothers of the big brothers you killed grow up regretting your boot on their necks.
At some point, somebody has to take active steps to deescalate. And the only one who has any agency to do so is Israel. Just as the scrawny nerd in the schoolyard cannot stop the bully's violence by declining to fight. The true violence is his lunch money being stolen. And yes, as I said above, Hamas aren't reasonable people so even if you stop shooting back, they'll just keep shooting. Of course, the ideal time to deescalate was a week ago, when Hamas had just struck and Israel had the whole world's sympathy. The whole schoolyard was standing around saying "oooooh Biff, Marty just punched you. That must hurt! You gonna just take that?" and Biff could have said: "you know what? I'm tired of this endless senseless fight." and this is where the metaphor falls short, because Marty is just one guy, whereas Palestina is a whole nation of which Hamas is just one faction. The loudest, most violent faction, no doubt, but still just one out of many. Israel could have declared an ultimatum. Something along the lines of a week to return the hostages and 6 months to deliver the perpetrators in chains, and a new Palestinean government in Gaza with which to conduct peace talks. Pressure Jordan and Egypt to back Israel. If in 6 months nothing happens, *then* do what they're doing right now. But until then, facilitate peace by supplying food, medicine, water, electricity and an honest attempt at dialogue.
Of course, it's a dream. Israel is a highly militarized nation and Netanyahu a borderline fascist. It's about as likely they won't hit back as it is that Biff won't beat up Marty in the schoolyard.
|
On October 21 2023 02:27 RvB wrote:Two hostages released by Hamas Show nested quote +Hamas has released two U.S. hostages - a mother and her daughter - "for humanitarian reasons" in response to Qatari mediation efforts, Hamas armed wing spokesman Abu Ubaida said in a statement on Friday. www.reuters.com
But will/has Israel release/d them?
|
Again, Israel has the ability to change the dynamic of the conflict to the better, they just have to stop the settlement policy, the suppression of the west bank palestinians becuase of that and the complete control of absolutely anything entering or leaving Gaza. The fact that they chose not to do that despite or because it could lead to to peace in the region shows that claiming nothing can be done unless Gaza is completely rid of Hamas is false. They didn't do anything positive towards peace before 1500 Israelis were killed.
Also, the argument that in some future scenario Israel would lose the ability to retaliate and that is immediately bad, sucks. Retaliation is the worst reason ever to kill, be it terrorist or civilians. The consensus here among almost everyone that the natural reaction to terror is to bomb the other side because retaliation is a reson why we are here. Avenging your dead has never brought them back and has, overthe last 30 years, not brought more peace to the region. Maybe retaliation is not a good security tool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
