|
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 November 01 2023 01:14 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 01:07 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 01:01 Cricketer12 wrote:On November 01 2023 00:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:34 Cricketer12 wrote:On November 01 2023 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Most people on gaza do not want to sacrifice their lives to kill jews, wtf. Hamas does. Not saying all Palestinians do, but Hamas intends to keep on making this trade and they have said so themselves repeatedly since October 7. So Israel should just make sure they only kill that same members of Hamas every time Hamas decides to run around killing 1000 people? Gotta make sure that response is proportional, while also leaving open the possibility of the cycle repeating forever? That’s why I’m saying the “proportional!!!” Argument is entirely bad faith. It makes zero sense and is yet another example of people gladly lunging towards “solutions” that allow the situation to continue. I'm not sure where you expect the current Israeli method to go other than the total genocide of the Palestinian people. But hey, who gives af about 2 million civies if we get 100 terrorists. In all other war scenarios, the losing side runs away and they become refugees in other countries. But as I’ve posted here a million times, neighboring Muslim countries encourage this fight and specifically say Palestinians are fighting on behalf of Arabs. They view Palestinians as a means to an end and confine them to their battle ring by closing their borders. Neighboring Muslim countries work to ensure this conflict continues and Hamas is on board because they love the idea of sacrificing themselves to kill Jews. It’s also dumb to pretend you think Israel would start gunning down 100k people and Egypt and Jordan would just give a thumbs up and do nothing. Egypt, Jordan, and other nations would never let Israel do that. At the bare minimum, they would open their borders rather than their current protocol of “wait no, I need you all to go keep fighting”. I don’t think you actually think these things. This feels like just trying to advocate for a position rather than you giving your impression of how events would unfold. You don’t actually imagine Israel killing 1 million people while everyone sits idly drooling 6000 civilians have been murdered in a fortnight, while the majority of this thread sits and pretends like it's fine. What the actual fuck are you talking about. No, of course Israel isn't going to huddle a million people into a firing style execution but to pretend they havent consistenly killed civies, bombed infrastructure and grabbed more and more land over the years is ignorant. 6000 coming from the same folks who said 500 and a flattened hospital? Yeah I bet. It’s all nonsense. You’re quoting a terrorist organization when the hospital is still there. When do we trust Hamas and when do we not? In your eyes, when are they reputable and trustworthy? You started with 2 million civilians, now it’s how many? And you’re saying Hamas is only 100 people? It’s unclear what you think the actual situation is because you just fling a bunch of hyperbole while cuddling a sense of moral high ground. They released the civilian registry detailing every single person that's been killed. Literally what more do you want? I love it when the mask comes off like this. You fucking disgust me.
Who released it? Have you verified it or are you just indicating there’s apparently some PDF with some names on it somewhere?
|
On October 31 2023 20:21 Salazarz wrote:
Well, first of all, on what grounds is Israel 'eradicating' Hamas? Are they at war with Gaza, and Hamas is the hostile government? Then Gaza must be recognized as a state, with all that such recognition entails. Is Gaza a territory occupied by Israel? Then it's Israel's duty to provide the basic services and ensure safety of its citizens.
Right now, Israel is basically having its cake and eating it too, by insisting that Hamas & Gaza is not in any way under Israel's jurisdiction, yet at the same time they pretty much completely control all access to the Gaza strip and insist they have the right to 'police' it as they see fit, all the while Palestine isn't recognized as an independent state by any of their allies (much on Israel's own behest).
Recognition as a state or state actor is not necessary. ISIS and its caliphate were not recognized and Al Qaeda was not a state actor. Yet resolution 1368 was unanimously adopted by the security council in 2001 and recognized the right to self-defense. Nobody also disputes Iraqs right to self defense in their fight against ISIS.
As for proportionality of the response... pretty much everything Israel has done since the beginning of their campaign is in direct violation of Geneva Convention and there's really no 'legal grey area' about it at all.
What counts as proportionate is a grey area. I'll quote The Economist:
Article 51 of the United Nations charter gives states the right of self-defence against armed attack, provided that, according to customary international law, the force they use is necessary and proportionate. Proportionality does not mean symmetry in the type of weapons used or the number of casualties caused. It means that the defending state can use as much force as is needed to address the threat—and no more.
On October 31 2023 21:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2023 18:23 RvB wrote:On October 31 2023 07:19 Acrofales wrote:On October 31 2023 04:22 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2023 03:34 Acrofales wrote:On October 31 2023 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2023 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On October 31 2023 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 30 2023 23:54 Nebuchad wrote:On October 30 2023 23:50 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I think the dog of war exists that some people put all the responsibility on Israel for the civilian victims and others put a shared responsibility on Israel Hamas and Iran. No that's not what's happening because if someone is doing self-defense they don't have a shared responsibility, they have no responsibility at all. In your eyes, when did this conflict between Israelis and Palestinians begin? I have no idea. The history doesn't matter to me because we can't change it, what matters is the current situation. It matters because the definition of the conflict matters. If someone decides the universe was created 50 years ago, Israel is colonizing. If the universe was not created 50 years ago, Israel and Palestine are at war. It is deeply dishonest to frame the conflict as beginning recently because that timeframe is defined purely for the intention of framing Palestinians as victims rather than participants in a war. You could pick various points in history depending on who you want to frame as a victim for pretty much any conflict that’s ever happened. Either you start from the beginning or you just accept that it’s a war. The way people use “self defense” is remarkably silly with this conflict. Neither Palestine or Israel are acting in self defense. Well, anything before 1920 doesn't make much sense. Before that, the area was a part of the Ottoman empire and that was that. And I'd argue that since the 1920s, Israel is colonizing. I am not sure why that is relevant to whether Israelis have a right to be on that bit of land, seeing as none of those involved in the current conflict had anything to do with any of that 100-year-old history. Are you saying nothing before 1920 has any impact on what happened after 1920? I feel like that is extremely not true. So long as events before 1920 contributed to events after 1920, it is appropriate to consider them. So sure, if you pretend Jews and Palestinians met each other for the first time in 1920 and were slamming beers together and having a great time, when suddenly Jews deciding to colonize, it’s easy to view the dynamic as colonizing. But there isn’t a reason to do that when we have a great of evidence that events before 1920 had a significant impact. Okay, explain to me how the Ottoman Empire or earlier has any bearing on the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. Without referencing certain religious manuscripts please, because that isn't *history*. Because unless we're referring to pre-Roman times, there has been no serious attempt to establish a state of Israel before the growth of Zionism. Zionism emerged during the Ottoman Empire and the first two Aliyah's were to Ottoman Palestine. E.g. Ben Gurion migrated during the second Aliyah. Indirectly Jews were also second class citizens and persecuted during various periods. None of that really matters for the question of self defense. There was a ceasefire and Hamas broke it. I've broadly seen two arguments against Israels use of self defense as a justification for the war. 1. It's technically not self defense because Gaza is occupied and Hamas is not a state actor. 2. The current response is not proportional. The first one I find uninteresting. Hamas is an armed group that governs Gaza. That it might not technically fit the definition of self defense misses the point and intent of the law. The second one is more interesting since that's a legal grey area. It's not clear what proportional is. Depending on your interpretation eradicating Hamas can be proportional. You find it "uninteresting" that Israel was already in the process of attacking Palestine before it started to self-defend against Palestine?
They weren't. There was a ceasefire. Hamas broke the ceasefire.
On October 31 2023 21:48 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2023 18:23 RvB wrote:On October 31 2023 07:19 Acrofales wrote:On October 31 2023 04:22 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2023 03:34 Acrofales wrote:On October 31 2023 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2023 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On October 31 2023 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 30 2023 23:54 Nebuchad wrote:On October 30 2023 23:50 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I think the dog of war exists that some people put all the responsibility on Israel for the civilian victims and others put a shared responsibility on Israel Hamas and Iran. No that's not what's happening because if someone is doing self-defense they don't have a shared responsibility, they have no responsibility at all. In your eyes, when did this conflict between Israelis and Palestinians begin? I have no idea. The history doesn't matter to me because we can't change it, what matters is the current situation. It matters because the definition of the conflict matters. If someone decides the universe was created 50 years ago, Israel is colonizing. If the universe was not created 50 years ago, Israel and Palestine are at war. It is deeply dishonest to frame the conflict as beginning recently because that timeframe is defined purely for the intention of framing Palestinians as victims rather than participants in a war. You could pick various points in history depending on who you want to frame as a victim for pretty much any conflict that’s ever happened. Either you start from the beginning or you just accept that it’s a war. The way people use “self defense” is remarkably silly with this conflict. Neither Palestine or Israel are acting in self defense. Well, anything before 1920 doesn't make much sense. Before that, the area was a part of the Ottoman empire and that was that. And I'd argue that since the 1920s, Israel is colonizing. I am not sure why that is relevant to whether Israelis have a right to be on that bit of land, seeing as none of those involved in the current conflict had anything to do with any of that 100-year-old history. Are you saying nothing before 1920 has any impact on what happened after 1920? I feel like that is extremely not true. So long as events before 1920 contributed to events after 1920, it is appropriate to consider them. So sure, if you pretend Jews and Palestinians met each other for the first time in 1920 and were slamming beers together and having a great time, when suddenly Jews deciding to colonize, it’s easy to view the dynamic as colonizing. But there isn’t a reason to do that when we have a great of evidence that events before 1920 had a significant impact. Okay, explain to me how the Ottoman Empire or earlier has any bearing on the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. Without referencing certain religious manuscripts please, because that isn't *history*. Because unless we're referring to pre-Roman times, there has been no serious attempt to establish a state of Israel before the growth of Zionism. Zionism emerged during the Ottoman Empire and the first two Aliyah's were to Ottoman Palestine. E.g. Ben Gurion migrated during the second Aliyah. Indirectly Jews were also second class citizens and persecuted during various periods. None of that really matters for the question of self defense. There was a ceasefire and Hamas broke it. I've broadly seen two arguments against Israels use of self defense as a justification for the war. 1. It's technically not self defense because Gaza is occupied and Hamas is not a state actor. 2. The current response is not proportional. The first one I find uninteresting. Hamas is an armed group that governs Gaza. That it might not technically fit the definition of self defense misses the point and intent of the law. The second one is more interesting since that's a legal grey area. It's not clear what proportional is. Depending on your interpretation eradicating Hamas can be proportional. To disregard the first point is to: 1. Wave away the entire argument that Israel is a colonial project and that those violently opposed are freedom fighters regaining their land. It implicitly implies that Israel has a right to the land and are on the whole justified in its actions. You can argue that is your view or that say Hamas isn't correct in its approach, which is fine, but unless you've discussed that already I don't think you can just wave away half the argument. 2. It also implies that this wasn't an eventuality with how the Gazans have been treated. Hamas shouldn't attack civilians or have a desire to kill all Jews, but tio imply that there the Gazan open air prison doesn't create the hostile conditions that bred Hamas at all is I think a little short sighted. Israel created their own boogeyman and then played victim to it, no? 3. It also ignores that there isn't constant land seizure and other aggressive acts by Israel into WB, Leb, and Syria. To your response on proportionality, I'm confused why we so willingly disregard the lives of Palestinian civillians.
1. There's nothing to wave away. The British Mandate incorporated the Balfour Declaration that supported a home for the Jews in Palestine. Israel is also recognized by the UN. The Jews are allowed to live there legally and Hamas aren't freedom fighters. They are genocidal maniacs. Palestinians deserve a state but so do Israelites.
2. It does not imply that. The right to self defense applies if an armed attack occurs. Israel's blockade of Gaza is not an armed attack. There are also better ways to solve the conflict than going on a killing spree. It is no coincidence that the conflict was the closest to a solution after the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist and started negotiating.
3. It does not. For the Palestinians, only the situation in the WB applies and nothing of what happened there can be classified as an armed attack that would justify Hamas' attacks.
To your response on proportionality, I'm confused why we so willingly disregard the lives of Palestinian civillians.
I do not disregard the lives of Palestinian civilians. We differ in our opinion on how to minimize Palestinian casualties. A ceasefire now leaves Hamas in charge and condemns Palestinians in Gaza to years if not decades of oppression. In the long run, it will inevitably lead to another invasion of Israel and many more civilian casualties in Israel and Gaza. In my view getting rid of Hamas is the only way to reduce future casualties and suffering.
|
On November 01 2023 01:29 RvB wrote:
They weren't. There was a ceasefire. Hamas broke the ceasefire.
+ Show Spoiler [fog of war] +
The settlements in the West Bank
|
|
|
On November 01 2023 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 00:46 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:22 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:
The propositional whatever argument is so dumb. That would mean Hamas can just decide to trade with 1000 lives every so often because they are barbarians who openly admit they love the idea of sacrificing themselves for killing Jews. They have endorsed the idea and want it to happen frequently. And now, under your system of no proportionality, they can't do that. Because... why? Edit: but to be fair I agree with you that the proportionality argument is a bit cringe, because the correct amount of Gaza civilians that should die in response to 1000 Israeli civilians dying is 0, not 1000. lol so when do we say it’s Hamas and when does it suddenly become Palestinians again? Who is the government is Gaza? This is just the same bad faith definition swapping mod conversation. Hamas launched the attack, but when Israel attacks, suddenly everyone is Palestinian and not Hamas. This circular reasoning just ends up back at “how about hamas continues to rule over Gaza and launch attacks every so often?”. I will go out of my way to just pretend this is unintentional and I am misunderstanding you. Is there a way for Israel to eliminate Hamas without harming “Palestinian civilians”? Is it that Israel is choosing a worse way to kill Hamas members and they ought to do it differently? Or is this just your subtle way of saying Israel should not eliminate Hamas? There isn't a special combination of words that you're going to find where you'll get me to agree with you that it's okay to bomb the civilians of a group that you've been trying to ethnically cleanse for years. 2: Hamas must be eliminated in order to prevent repeats of October 7. This is fundamentally a war and the ugliness of war is a sad reality.
War has rules, or at least the West pretends like it does when it suits them.
You can maintain the perspective (like the West has) that they don't apply to Israel, but then the entire conceptualization of a "rules-based international order" is decimated and loses any semblance of legitimacy it might have maintained.
|
On November 01 2023 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:46 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:22 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:
The propositional whatever argument is so dumb. That would mean Hamas can just decide to trade with 1000 lives every so often because they are barbarians who openly admit they love the idea of sacrificing themselves for killing Jews. They have endorsed the idea and want it to happen frequently. And now, under your system of no proportionality, they can't do that. Because... why? Edit: but to be fair I agree with you that the proportionality argument is a bit cringe, because the correct amount of Gaza civilians that should die in response to 1000 Israeli civilians dying is 0, not 1000. lol so when do we say it’s Hamas and when does it suddenly become Palestinians again? Who is the government is Gaza? This is just the same bad faith definition swapping mod conversation. Hamas launched the attack, but when Israel attacks, suddenly everyone is Palestinian and not Hamas. This circular reasoning just ends up back at “how about hamas continues to rule over Gaza and launch attacks every so often?”. I will go out of my way to just pretend this is unintentional and I am misunderstanding you. Is there a way for Israel to eliminate Hamas without harming “Palestinian civilians”? Is it that Israel is choosing a worse way to kill Hamas members and they ought to do it differently? Or is this just your subtle way of saying Israel should not eliminate Hamas? There isn't a special combination of words that you're going to find where you'll get me to agree with you that it's okay to bomb the civilians of a group that you've been trying to ethnically cleanse for years. 2: Hamas must be eliminated in order to prevent repeats of October 7. This is fundamentally a war and the ugliness of war is a sad reality. War has rules, or at least the West pretends like it does when it suits them. You can maintain the perspective (like the West has) that they don't apply to Israel, but then the entire conceptualization of a "rules-based international order" is decimated and loses any semblance of legitimacy it might have maintained.
There are not rules and no reason to pretend there are rules. Can’t think of any war in the last 50 years that obeyed the “rules”. Can you think of any? There aren’t rules. I’m not advocating against rule, but I’m saying there are so clearly no rules that it’s dumb to cite rules. And it’s not like Hamas is using these supposed “rules”, so even if we entertain some dumb fantasy with war rules, Hamas sure as hell ain’t following them, so I would never ask Israel to handcuff themselves when their enemy isn’t.
|
On November 01 2023 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 00:46 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:22 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:
The propositional whatever argument is so dumb. That would mean Hamas can just decide to trade with 1000 lives every so often because they are barbarians who openly admit they love the idea of sacrificing themselves for killing Jews. They have endorsed the idea and want it to happen frequently. And now, under your system of no proportionality, they can't do that. Because... why? Edit: but to be fair I agree with you that the proportionality argument is a bit cringe, because the correct amount of Gaza civilians that should die in response to 1000 Israeli civilians dying is 0, not 1000. lol so when do we say it’s Hamas and when does it suddenly become Palestinians again? Who is the government is Gaza? This is just the same bad faith definition swapping mod conversation. Hamas launched the attack, but when Israel attacks, suddenly everyone is Palestinian and not Hamas. This circular reasoning just ends up back at “how about hamas continues to rule over Gaza and launch attacks every so often?”. I will go out of my way to just pretend this is unintentional and I am misunderstanding you. Is there a way for Israel to eliminate Hamas without harming “Palestinian civilians”? Is it that Israel is choosing a worse way to kill Hamas members and they ought to do it differently? Or is this just your subtle way of saying Israel should not eliminate Hamas? There isn't a special combination of words that you're going to find where you'll get me to agree with you that it's okay to bomb the civilians of a group that you've been trying to ethnically cleanse for years. I understand the perspective you’re fond of and I’m not trying to pull you away from it. What I wanted to verify is that you do not advocate for any pathway that leads to Hamas no longer controlling territory. I was curious if I was missing something and that there were other ideas people had for preventing Hamas from controlling land because it felt like you didn’t like any of the ideas I’m familiar with. But just to be entirely clear, it’s not important to me to change anyone’s ideas because none of us will ever change anything. It’s just a bunch of ideas rubbing against each other and learning. All totally irrelevant. So far my impression is that folks in this conversation fit into 1 of 2 categories: 1: The costs of eliminating Hamas are too big, so we should allow Hamas to continue launching attacks that kill tons of people every so often because it’s better than all available options of eliminating Hamas. Eliminating Hamas will always come with some form of ethnic cleansing, so it must be avoided entirely. 2: Hamas must be eliminated in order to prevent repeats of October 7. This is fundamentally a war and the ugliness of war is a sad reality. For anyone who feels like they are better described by [1] than [2], do you think a 2 state solution will ever be a reality? If so, why/how?
A two-state solution is as likely as a new one-state solution that Palestinians agree to, which is to say for either to happen, it begins with Palestinians being recongized as an equal and valid party. From their perspective Palestinians have been asked to give up the majority of their land and smile about it. A far more equitable compromise needs to be offered. Israel needs to stop committing war crimes, and needs to start backing off instead of encroaching further.
|
On November 01 2023 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2023 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:46 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:22 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:
The propositional whatever argument is so dumb. That would mean Hamas can just decide to trade with 1000 lives every so often because they are barbarians who openly admit they love the idea of sacrificing themselves for killing Jews. They have endorsed the idea and want it to happen frequently. And now, under your system of no proportionality, they can't do that. Because... why? Edit: but to be fair I agree with you that the proportionality argument is a bit cringe, because the correct amount of Gaza civilians that should die in response to 1000 Israeli civilians dying is 0, not 1000. lol so when do we say it’s Hamas and when does it suddenly become Palestinians again? Who is the government is Gaza? This is just the same bad faith definition swapping mod conversation. Hamas launched the attack, but when Israel attacks, suddenly everyone is Palestinian and not Hamas. This circular reasoning just ends up back at “how about hamas continues to rule over Gaza and launch attacks every so often?”. I will go out of my way to just pretend this is unintentional and I am misunderstanding you. Is there a way for Israel to eliminate Hamas without harming “Palestinian civilians”? Is it that Israel is choosing a worse way to kill Hamas members and they ought to do it differently? Or is this just your subtle way of saying Israel should not eliminate Hamas? There isn't a special combination of words that you're going to find where you'll get me to agree with you that it's okay to bomb the civilians of a group that you've been trying to ethnically cleanse for years. 2: Hamas must be eliminated in order to prevent repeats of October 7. This is fundamentally a war and the ugliness of war is a sad reality. War has rules, or at least the West pretends like it does when it suits them. You can maintain the perspective (like the West has) that they don't apply to Israel, but then the entire conceptualization of a "rules-based international order" is decimated and loses any semblance of legitimacy it might have maintained. There are not rules and no reason to pretend there are rules. Can’t think of any war in the last 50 years that obeyed the “rules”. Can you think of any? There aren’t rules. I’m not advocating against rule, but I’m saying there are so clearly no rules that it’s dumb to cite rules. And it’s not like Hamas is using these supposed “rules”, so even if we entertain some dumb fantasy with war rules, Hamas sure as hell ain’t following them, so I would never ask Israel to handcuff themselves when their enemy isn’t.
You are advocating against rules and in favor of "might makes right".
|
On November 01 2023 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2023 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:46 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:22 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:
The propositional whatever argument is so dumb. That would mean Hamas can just decide to trade with 1000 lives every so often because they are barbarians who openly admit they love the idea of sacrificing themselves for killing Jews. They have endorsed the idea and want it to happen frequently. And now, under your system of no proportionality, they can't do that. Because... why? Edit: but to be fair I agree with you that the proportionality argument is a bit cringe, because the correct amount of Gaza civilians that should die in response to 1000 Israeli civilians dying is 0, not 1000. lol so when do we say it’s Hamas and when does it suddenly become Palestinians again? Who is the government is Gaza? This is just the same bad faith definition swapping mod conversation. Hamas launched the attack, but when Israel attacks, suddenly everyone is Palestinian and not Hamas. This circular reasoning just ends up back at “how about hamas continues to rule over Gaza and launch attacks every so often?”. I will go out of my way to just pretend this is unintentional and I am misunderstanding you. Is there a way for Israel to eliminate Hamas without harming “Palestinian civilians”? Is it that Israel is choosing a worse way to kill Hamas members and they ought to do it differently? Or is this just your subtle way of saying Israel should not eliminate Hamas? There isn't a special combination of words that you're going to find where you'll get me to agree with you that it's okay to bomb the civilians of a group that you've been trying to ethnically cleanse for years. 2: Hamas must be eliminated in order to prevent repeats of October 7. This is fundamentally a war and the ugliness of war is a sad reality. War has rules, or at least the West pretends like it does when it suits them. You can maintain the perspective (like the West has) that they don't apply to Israel, but then the entire conceptualization of a "rules-based international order" is decimated and loses any semblance of legitimacy it might have maintained. There are not rules and no reason to pretend there are rules. Can’t think of any war in the last 50 years that obeyed the “rules”. Can you think of any? There aren’t rules. I’m not advocating against rule, but I’m saying there are so clearly no rules that it’s dumb to cite rules. And it’s not like Hamas is using these supposed “rules”, so even if we entertain some dumb fantasy with war rules, Hamas sure as hell ain’t following them, so I would never ask Israel to handcuff themselves when their enemy isn’t. You are advocating against rules and in favor of "might makes right".
Are we operating under the same assumptions here? Has Hamas declared war on Israel? Are they at war? Is there some other mechanism for resolving wars? You are describing might makes right as a perverse dynamic, which I of course agree with in situations where 1 side wants conflict while the other does not. But they are both totally on board with being at war with each other. Hamas is not seeking coexistence and neither is Israel. They both love the idea of killing each other. Should that be resolved other than might makes right? What else is there? Or are you saying they are not at war?
|
The IDF essentially confirms it targeted the refugee camp.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
Uhm, another one? Because that video of rocket launch straight from refugee camp (with immediate response bombing from IDF) is kinda old by now. Disclaimer: i can't be arsed to find a working VPN to open twitter in Russia right now.
|
On November 01 2023 02:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2023 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2023 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:46 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:22 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:
The propositional whatever argument is so dumb. That would mean Hamas can just decide to trade with 1000 lives every so often because they are barbarians who openly admit they love the idea of sacrificing themselves for killing Jews. They have endorsed the idea and want it to happen frequently. And now, under your system of no proportionality, they can't do that. Because... why? Edit: but to be fair I agree with you that the proportionality argument is a bit cringe, because the correct amount of Gaza civilians that should die in response to 1000 Israeli civilians dying is 0, not 1000. lol so when do we say it’s Hamas and when does it suddenly become Palestinians again? Who is the government is Gaza? This is just the same bad faith definition swapping mod conversation. Hamas launched the attack, but when Israel attacks, suddenly everyone is Palestinian and not Hamas. This circular reasoning just ends up back at “how about hamas continues to rule over Gaza and launch attacks every so often?”. I will go out of my way to just pretend this is unintentional and I am misunderstanding you. Is there a way for Israel to eliminate Hamas without harming “Palestinian civilians”? Is it that Israel is choosing a worse way to kill Hamas members and they ought to do it differently? Or is this just your subtle way of saying Israel should not eliminate Hamas? There isn't a special combination of words that you're going to find where you'll get me to agree with you that it's okay to bomb the civilians of a group that you've been trying to ethnically cleanse for years. 2: Hamas must be eliminated in order to prevent repeats of October 7. This is fundamentally a war and the ugliness of war is a sad reality. War has rules, or at least the West pretends like it does when it suits them. You can maintain the perspective (like the West has) that they don't apply to Israel, but then the entire conceptualization of a "rules-based international order" is decimated and loses any semblance of legitimacy it might have maintained. There are not rules and no reason to pretend there are rules. Can’t think of any war in the last 50 years that obeyed the “rules”. Can you think of any? There aren’t rules. I’m not advocating against rule, but I’m saying there are so clearly no rules that it’s dumb to cite rules. And it’s not like Hamas is using these supposed “rules”, so even if we entertain some dumb fantasy with war rules, Hamas sure as hell ain’t following them, so I would never ask Israel to handcuff themselves when their enemy isn’t. You are advocating against rules and in favor of "might makes right". Are we operating under the same assumptions here? Has Hamas declared war on Israel? Are they at war? Is there some other mechanism for resolving wars? You are describing might makes right as a perverse dynamic, which I of course agree with in situations where 1 side wants conflict while the other does not. But they are both totally on board with being at war with each other. Hamas is not seeking coexistence and neither is Israel. They both love the idea of killing each other. Should that be resolved other than might makes right? What else is there? Or are you saying they are not at war? We are definitely not operating under the same assumptions, but what you are particularly struggling with is the concept that war doesn't justify ethnic cleansing/genocide.
Additionally, that Western society as we understand it has at its foundation the concept (arguably a blatant lie) that the West isn't just exploiting its might to arbitrarily and capriciously enforce rules to advance a US led racial capitalist hegemony.
|
On November 01 2023 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 02:50 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2023 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2023 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:46 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:22 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:
The propositional whatever argument is so dumb. That would mean Hamas can just decide to trade with 1000 lives every so often because they are barbarians who openly admit they love the idea of sacrificing themselves for killing Jews. They have endorsed the idea and want it to happen frequently. And now, under your system of no proportionality, they can't do that. Because... why? Edit: but to be fair I agree with you that the proportionality argument is a bit cringe, because the correct amount of Gaza civilians that should die in response to 1000 Israeli civilians dying is 0, not 1000. lol so when do we say it’s Hamas and when does it suddenly become Palestinians again? Who is the government is Gaza? This is just the same bad faith definition swapping mod conversation. Hamas launched the attack, but when Israel attacks, suddenly everyone is Palestinian and not Hamas. This circular reasoning just ends up back at “how about hamas continues to rule over Gaza and launch attacks every so often?”. I will go out of my way to just pretend this is unintentional and I am misunderstanding you. Is there a way for Israel to eliminate Hamas without harming “Palestinian civilians”? Is it that Israel is choosing a worse way to kill Hamas members and they ought to do it differently? Or is this just your subtle way of saying Israel should not eliminate Hamas? There isn't a special combination of words that you're going to find where you'll get me to agree with you that it's okay to bomb the civilians of a group that you've been trying to ethnically cleanse for years. 2: Hamas must be eliminated in order to prevent repeats of October 7. This is fundamentally a war and the ugliness of war is a sad reality. War has rules, or at least the West pretends like it does when it suits them. You can maintain the perspective (like the West has) that they don't apply to Israel, but then the entire conceptualization of a "rules-based international order" is decimated and loses any semblance of legitimacy it might have maintained. There are not rules and no reason to pretend there are rules. Can’t think of any war in the last 50 years that obeyed the “rules”. Can you think of any? There aren’t rules. I’m not advocating against rule, but I’m saying there are so clearly no rules that it’s dumb to cite rules. And it’s not like Hamas is using these supposed “rules”, so even if we entertain some dumb fantasy with war rules, Hamas sure as hell ain’t following them, so I would never ask Israel to handcuff themselves when their enemy isn’t. You are advocating against rules and in favor of "might makes right". Are we operating under the same assumptions here? Has Hamas declared war on Israel? Are they at war? Is there some other mechanism for resolving wars? You are describing might makes right as a perverse dynamic, which I of course agree with in situations where 1 side wants conflict while the other does not. But they are both totally on board with being at war with each other. Hamas is not seeking coexistence and neither is Israel. They both love the idea of killing each other. Should that be resolved other than might makes right? What else is there? Or are you saying they are not at war? We are definitely not operating under the same assumptions, but what you are particularly struggling with is the concept that war doesn't justify ethnic cleansing/genocide.
Can we focus on this part and you help me better understand you?
Assumption 1: Hamas wants to kill all Jews and eliminate Israel. They have declared war and expressed their interest in killing all Israelis as a component of this.
Assumption 2: Israel has declared war on Hamas. Israel intends kill as many members of Hamas as possible as they work towards the goal of preventing Hamas from controlling any amount of land. Israel doesn’t give 2 shits how many civilians die as they work towards that goal.
When I look at these 2 assumptions, it feels like there is a friendly handshake confirming they are both enthusiastic about ethnic cleansing. They are saying “onward, to extermination! May the best lunatic win!”. Are my assumptions wrong? It feels like the war is predicated on the idea of ethnic cleansing. Both Hamas and Israel seem to have agreed to ethnic cleansing as a core component of their conflict. Doesn’t that mean ethnic cleansing is the whole point?
What am I misreading?
|
On November 01 2023 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2023 02:50 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2023 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2023 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:46 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:22 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
And now, under your system of no proportionality, they can't do that. Because... why?
Edit: but to be fair I agree with you that the proportionality argument is a bit cringe, because the correct amount of Gaza civilians that should die in response to 1000 Israeli civilians dying is 0, not 1000. lol so when do we say it’s Hamas and when does it suddenly become Palestinians again? Who is the government is Gaza? This is just the same bad faith definition swapping mod conversation. Hamas launched the attack, but when Israel attacks, suddenly everyone is Palestinian and not Hamas. This circular reasoning just ends up back at “how about hamas continues to rule over Gaza and launch attacks every so often?”. I will go out of my way to just pretend this is unintentional and I am misunderstanding you. Is there a way for Israel to eliminate Hamas without harming “Palestinian civilians”? Is it that Israel is choosing a worse way to kill Hamas members and they ought to do it differently? Or is this just your subtle way of saying Israel should not eliminate Hamas? There isn't a special combination of words that you're going to find where you'll get me to agree with you that it's okay to bomb the civilians of a group that you've been trying to ethnically cleanse for years. 2: Hamas must be eliminated in order to prevent repeats of October 7. This is fundamentally a war and the ugliness of war is a sad reality. War has rules, or at least the West pretends like it does when it suits them. You can maintain the perspective (like the West has) that they don't apply to Israel, but then the entire conceptualization of a "rules-based international order" is decimated and loses any semblance of legitimacy it might have maintained. There are not rules and no reason to pretend there are rules. Can’t think of any war in the last 50 years that obeyed the “rules”. Can you think of any? There aren’t rules. I’m not advocating against rule, but I’m saying there are so clearly no rules that it’s dumb to cite rules. And it’s not like Hamas is using these supposed “rules”, so even if we entertain some dumb fantasy with war rules, Hamas sure as hell ain’t following them, so I would never ask Israel to handcuff themselves when their enemy isn’t. You are advocating against rules and in favor of "might makes right". Are we operating under the same assumptions here? Has Hamas declared war on Israel? Are they at war? Is there some other mechanism for resolving wars? You are describing might makes right as a perverse dynamic, which I of course agree with in situations where 1 side wants conflict while the other does not. But they are both totally on board with being at war with each other. Hamas is not seeking coexistence and neither is Israel. They both love the idea of killing each other. Should that be resolved other than might makes right? What else is there? Or are you saying they are not at war? We are definitely not operating under the same assumptions, but what you are particularly struggling with is the concept that war doesn't justify ethnic cleansing/genocide. Can we focus on this part and you help me better understand you? Assumption 1: Hamas wants to kill all Jews and eliminate Israel. They have declared war and expressed their interest in killing all Israelis as a component of this. Assumption 2: Israel has declared war on Hamas. Israel intends kill as many members of Hamas as possible as they work towards the goal of preventing Hamas from controlling any amount of land. Israel doesn’t give 2 shits how many civilians die as they work towards that goal. When I look at these 2 assumptions, it feels like there is a friendly handshake confirming they are both enthusiastic about ethnic cleansing. They are saying “onward, to extermination! May the best lunatic win!”. Are my assumptions wrong? It feels like the war is predicated on the idea of ethnic cleansing. Both Hamas and Israel seem to have agreed to ethnic cleansing as a core component of their conflict. Doesn’t that mean ethnic cleansing is the whole point? What am I misreading?
I mean almost everything at some point but to try to keep this manageable I'd focus on the fact that Western society is dependent on maintaining the idea that if your assumptions were accurate it's their moral, legal, and social obligation to step in between and say "not on our watch, and certainly not with our complicity"
You're correct that this is obviously not what the West is doing at the policy level.
You seem to be completely oblivious to the implications of that.
|
|
|
The settlements aren't an armed attack. Neither is an armed response necessary. The settlements in Sinai and Gaza were abandoned after the peace agreement and unilateral retreat. A solution for the West Bank settlements was also a part of the negotiations with Arafat and Abbas.
|
On November 01 2023 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2023 02:50 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2023 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2023 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:46 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
lol so when do we say it’s Hamas and when does it suddenly become Palestinians again?
Who is the government is Gaza? This is just the same bad faith definition swapping mod conversation. Hamas launched the attack, but when Israel attacks, suddenly everyone is Palestinian and not Hamas.
This circular reasoning just ends up back at “how about hamas continues to rule over Gaza and launch attacks every so often?”.
I will go out of my way to just pretend this is unintentional and I am misunderstanding you. Is there a way for Israel to eliminate Hamas without harming “Palestinian civilians”? Is it that Israel is choosing a worse way to kill Hamas members and they ought to do it differently? Or is this just your subtle way of saying Israel should not eliminate Hamas? There isn't a special combination of words that you're going to find where you'll get me to agree with you that it's okay to bomb the civilians of a group that you've been trying to ethnically cleanse for years. 2: Hamas must be eliminated in order to prevent repeats of October 7. This is fundamentally a war and the ugliness of war is a sad reality. War has rules, or at least the West pretends like it does when it suits them. You can maintain the perspective (like the West has) that they don't apply to Israel, but then the entire conceptualization of a "rules-based international order" is decimated and loses any semblance of legitimacy it might have maintained. There are not rules and no reason to pretend there are rules. Can’t think of any war in the last 50 years that obeyed the “rules”. Can you think of any? There aren’t rules. I’m not advocating against rule, but I’m saying there are so clearly no rules that it’s dumb to cite rules. And it’s not like Hamas is using these supposed “rules”, so even if we entertain some dumb fantasy with war rules, Hamas sure as hell ain’t following them, so I would never ask Israel to handcuff themselves when their enemy isn’t. You are advocating against rules and in favor of "might makes right". Are we operating under the same assumptions here? Has Hamas declared war on Israel? Are they at war? Is there some other mechanism for resolving wars? You are describing might makes right as a perverse dynamic, which I of course agree with in situations where 1 side wants conflict while the other does not. But they are both totally on board with being at war with each other. Hamas is not seeking coexistence and neither is Israel. They both love the idea of killing each other. Should that be resolved other than might makes right? What else is there? Or are you saying they are not at war? We are definitely not operating under the same assumptions, but what you are particularly struggling with is the concept that war doesn't justify ethnic cleansing/genocide. Can we focus on this part and you help me better understand you? Assumption 1: Hamas wants to kill all Jews and eliminate Israel. They have declared war and expressed their interest in killing all Israelis as a component of this. Assumption 2: Israel has declared war on Hamas. Israel intends kill as many members of Hamas as possible as they work towards the goal of preventing Hamas from controlling any amount of land. Israel doesn’t give 2 shits how many civilians die as they work towards that goal. When I look at these 2 assumptions, it feels like there is a friendly handshake confirming they are both enthusiastic about ethnic cleansing. They are saying “onward, to extermination! May the best lunatic win!”. Are my assumptions wrong? It feels like the war is predicated on the idea of ethnic cleansing. Both Hamas and Israel seem to have agreed to ethnic cleansing as a core component of their conflict. Doesn’t that mean ethnic cleansing is the whole point? What am I misreading? I mean almost everything at some point but to try to keep this manageable I'd focus on the fact that Western society is dependent on maintaining the idea that if your assumptions were accurate it's their moral, legal, and social obligation to step in between and say "not on our watch, and certainly not with our complicity" You're correct that this is obviously not what the West is doing at the policy level. You seem to be completely oblivious to the implications of that.
Sorry, I don’t think I understand your answer. Are those assumptions true? Does Hamas intend to pursue ethnic cleansing? Does Israel agree to do the same?
Is anyone stepping in? Qatar, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, and all the other governments in the area? Where is France, China, Russia, literally anyone?
We basically have 2 factions drooling to ethnically cleanse each other, but no one wants to stop it. Plenty of nations are taking the opportunity to virtue signal, but in the absence of anyone stepping in between, is this not 2 consenting factions shaking hands to ethnically cleanse each other?
You’re being amazingly unclear and I don’t understand why. Why are you hesitating to just give a clear answer and give your take. It’s like you’re some kinda Cheshire Cat sneaking around trees speaking in riddles. I don’t see why you are using this as an opportunity to make some kinda jab at the west as if this is a political rally. Just engage with the conversation. I’m doing my best to understand you and all you’re doing is saying I’m ignorant and that the west are hypocrites.
Yes, I am an ignorant idiot.
Yes, the west are hypocrites.
Ok, cool, we’re aligned. Now will you engage with my assumption verification above and help me better understand what you want Hamas and Israel to do rather than ethnic cleansing?
|
On November 01 2023 03:59 RvB wrote:The settlements aren't an armed attack. Neither is an armed response necessary. The settlements in Sinai and Gaza were abandoned after the peace agreement and unilateral retreat. A solution for the West Bank settlements was also a part of the negotiations with Arafat and Abbas.
All of them are violence, in violation of peace treaties and international law, and it's not uncommon that weapons are used to force Palestinians to displace, in addition to the more traditional methods.
|
Northern Ireland23799 Posts
On November 01 2023 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 01:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2023 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:46 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:On November 01 2023 00:22 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:
The propositional whatever argument is so dumb. That would mean Hamas can just decide to trade with 1000 lives every so often because they are barbarians who openly admit they love the idea of sacrificing themselves for killing Jews. They have endorsed the idea and want it to happen frequently. And now, under your system of no proportionality, they can't do that. Because... why? Edit: but to be fair I agree with you that the proportionality argument is a bit cringe, because the correct amount of Gaza civilians that should die in response to 1000 Israeli civilians dying is 0, not 1000. lol so when do we say it’s Hamas and when does it suddenly become Palestinians again? Who is the government is Gaza? This is just the same bad faith definition swapping mod conversation. Hamas launched the attack, but when Israel attacks, suddenly everyone is Palestinian and not Hamas. This circular reasoning just ends up back at “how about hamas continues to rule over Gaza and launch attacks every so often?”. I will go out of my way to just pretend this is unintentional and I am misunderstanding you. Is there a way for Israel to eliminate Hamas without harming “Palestinian civilians”? Is it that Israel is choosing a worse way to kill Hamas members and they ought to do it differently? Or is this just your subtle way of saying Israel should not eliminate Hamas? There isn't a special combination of words that you're going to find where you'll get me to agree with you that it's okay to bomb the civilians of a group that you've been trying to ethnically cleanse for years. 2: Hamas must be eliminated in order to prevent repeats of October 7. This is fundamentally a war and the ugliness of war is a sad reality. War has rules, or at least the West pretends like it does when it suits them. You can maintain the perspective (like the West has) that they don't apply to Israel, but then the entire conceptualization of a "rules-based international order" is decimated and loses any semblance of legitimacy it might have maintained. There are not rules and no reason to pretend there are rules. Can’t think of any war in the last 50 years that obeyed the “rules”. Can you think of any? There aren’t rules. I’m not advocating against rule, but I’m saying there are so clearly no rules that it’s dumb to cite rules. And it’s not like Hamas is using these supposed “rules”, so even if we entertain some dumb fantasy with war rules, Hamas sure as hell ain’t following them, so I would never ask Israel to handcuff themselves when their enemy isn’t.
Afghanistan and especially Iraq were wars of folly IMO, but they were still broadly enacted in accordance to the generally internationally accepted and codified rules of warfare.
Despite opposition, especially from Serbs you can broadly say the same for NATO intervention in the Yugoslavian civil war.
It’s actually pretty damn easy to think of examples. Of course these aren’t 100% equivalent given their interventions with far flung regions and not those in proximity.
|
Northern Ireland23799 Posts
On November 01 2023 03:51 JimmiC wrote:
Hamas's stated objective is ethnic cleansing, Israel's is not.
‘Stated’ being the operative word. Hamas is the mouthy weedy guy in a bar who says he’ll take Mike Tyson after a few drinks, but patently lacks the capacity to actually do any of that in reality. Of course Hamas attitudes and those of Israelis neighbouring states are important factors, absolutely.
Israel can say what they want, but as the old adage goes, actions speak louder than words. Even in peacetime encroaching settlements against prior agreements, squashing Gazans into an open air prison that gets smaller and smaller and bombing the shit out of them when they get uppity, shutting off power and supplies. What else does one call that?
Let’s not pretend that extreme Zionists absolutely do want the Palestinians completely removed, or on the flip side that many Israelis want an end to current policy and moves to peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
