|
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. |
It's more than ridiculous, it's categorically unacceptable to reasonable people imo.
|
This thread is the equivalent of using semantics to argue whether Freddy or Jason is more of a monster.
|
On November 01 2023 06:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 06:28 RvB wrote:On November 01 2023 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 03:59 RvB wrote:On November 01 2023 01:32 Nebuchad wrote: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
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. They're illegal yes. That does not make them an armed attack. Small scale violence does not automatically fall under that definition. Otherwise a border skirmish would trigger the right to self defense. Either way one of the conditions for self defense is necessity. As I pointed out there are other options to solve the settlements. So self defense does not apply. One of the salient points of this conflict is that it isn't a border because Israel is intent on not letting Palestinians have a state. I'm taking your house, I have an army supporting me (it's not an armed attack), you fight back how dare you attack me now I can respond in self-defense. This is absolutely a reasonable conversation between two adults and not some apologist bullshit.
Israel already accepted a Palestinian state when they accepted the UN partition plan in 1947. There were two other offers they made for a two state solution after the Oslo accords.
On November 01 2023 10:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 01:29 RvB wrote: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: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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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. I think you’re overselling the Balfour declaration. Both in terms of how significant it was as a statement and whether Palestine was Britain’s to give away. If your legal authority for colonization comes from the British you’re already on shaky ground but if it’s not even an act of parliament or a statement of policy by the British then you’re building a straw house on that shaky ground.
Not really. It was incorporated into the League of Nations mandate. The mandates are the legal basis for most of the surrounding countries in the area. Nobody questions Jordan's right to exist or where their borders are because they were part of the British Mandate.
|
On November 01 2023 16:45 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 06:34 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 06:28 RvB wrote:On November 01 2023 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 03:59 RvB wrote:On November 01 2023 01:32 Nebuchad wrote: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
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. They're illegal yes. That does not make them an armed attack. Small scale violence does not automatically fall under that definition. Otherwise a border skirmish would trigger the right to self defense. Either way one of the conditions for self defense is necessity. As I pointed out there are other options to solve the settlements. So self defense does not apply. One of the salient points of this conflict is that it isn't a border because Israel is intent on not letting Palestinians have a state. I'm taking your house, I have an army supporting me (it's not an armed attack), you fight back how dare you attack me now I can respond in self-defense. This is absolutely a reasonable conversation between two adults and not some apologist bullshit. Israel already accepted a Palestinian state when they accepted the UN partition plan in 1947. There were two other offers they made for a two state solution after the Oslo accords.
I am not accepting this as an answer to my post in the context of what we were discussing, it doesn't cover any of the topics. There's also no contradiction, Israel can have a position on a Palestinian state at the time and a different one today. Unless you plan to deny that they're very intent on not letting Palestinians have a state today I am not sure why you felt the need to write this.
The settlers have killed more than 100 Palestinians in the West Bank since october 7th. If you make the mistake of going on Elon Musk's doomed social media site you can do a search with "South Hebron Hills" and you'll get a bunch of videos related to communities being threatened with weapons and forced to leave their homes.
|
On November 01 2023 16:23 Mikau313 wrote:
This thread is the equivalent of using semantics to argue whether Freddy or Jason is more of a monster.
More like, the equivalent of using semantics to argue how Freddy isn't as big of a monster as Jason is, and how Freddy is justified in what he's doing because 'it's just self-defense, bro', but yeah.
|
On November 01 2023 20:18 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 16:23 Mikau313 wrote:
This thread is the equivalent of using semantics to argue whether Freddy or Jason is more of a monster. More like, the equivalent of using semantics to argue how Freddy isn't as big of a monster as Jason is, and how Freddy is justified in what he's doing because 'it's just self-defense, bro', but yeah.
The bullshit justifications clearly go both ways.
So no, it isn't like that at all.
|
On November 01 2023 20:18 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 16:23 Mikau313 wrote:
This thread is the equivalent of using semantics to argue whether Freddy or Jason is more of a monster. More like, the equivalent of using semantics to argue how Freddy isn't as big of a monster as Jason is, and how Freddy is justified in what he's doing because 'it's just self-defense, bro', but yeah.
I just fucking love how someone comes in and observes how both sides are trying to argue which one is the least worse, you immediately double down with "nu uh! Achually, other side is worse!"
Self awareness; none.
|
I mean, I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim that the atrocities that Hamas have committed are somehow righteous or that Israel totally had it coming. Plenty of people say they can understand why those things happened, but nobody -- or at least, nobody that I've seen -- is arguing that they are right to do it, so I'm not sure where are you getting that from?
|
Norway28910 Posts
Yeah. There are attempts at understanding why Hamas does what Hamas does, at attempting to understand why they enjoy considerable support within Palestine/the islamic world ('they're shitty people doesn't really qualify), perhaps there have been examples of 'it's inevitable that Hamas will respond the way they do when they're subject to the treatment they are subjected to), but I haven't seen a single actual defense of the terrorist attack on October 7. People who critique Israel tend to qualify their posts with 'obviously Hamas are disgusting terrorists'.
Not saying that people are giving Israel a free pass - but I'm seeing far more people defend bombing of civilians on the Gaza strip (they have to do this to get to Hamas/stating that the death counts are fabricated) than I am seeing people defend killing Israeli civilians. I mean, I'm not here to defend killing Israeli civilians, I'm not even making an equivalence between the two, but there are elements of what Israel does which I find entirely condemnable and struggle seeing how is defensible even in 'an act of war'. While there are posters who are clear in their condemnation of settlement policies/ hindering water food and electricity even while having an overall 'I understand that Israel must do what it must do to squash Hamas', I definitely feel it as less ubiqitous from that side than I find the condemnation of Hamas from the 'pro-palestine'-side.
Our resident Rabbi on the other hand seemed to defend the blockade ('you can be sure that all the Palestinians who think with their stomach or wallet will start hating Hamas every time a missile is fired') and defined the settlements as 'Israeli settlers have been buying up empty hilltops and building houses on them'. I'm not interested in the semantics side of the argument, but I would have hoped that there are some areas where basically everyone could find themselves in agreement.
|
|
|
On November 01 2023 22:32 JimmiC wrote:
People are arguing that Israel has no right to strike back at Hamas.
People are arguing that Israel isn't "striking back" at Hamas. The premise is a lie.
Hamas is "striking back" at Israel, btw. That doesn't make them justified in their targeting of civilians, nor does it make the question "ah but what else should Hamas do" an interesting one
|
|
|
On November 01 2023 23:19 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 23:05 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 22:32 JimmiC wrote:
People are arguing that Israel has no right to strike back at Hamas. People are arguing that Israel isn't "striking back" at Hamas. The premise is a lie. Hamas is "striking back" at Israel, btw. That doesn't make them justified in their targeting of civilians, nor does it make the question "ah but what else should Hamas do" an interesting one How kind of you to pull something out of context and treat it as a lone statement. You can't attack back at just Hamas because of their strategy of imbedding in civilians. Don't be so naive.
In the context did you write "I realize that my portrayal of the argument I'm facing as "Israel has no right to strike back at Hamas" was inaccurate"?
|
|
|
On November 01 2023 23:29 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 23:23 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 23:19 JimmiC wrote:On November 01 2023 23:05 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 22:32 JimmiC wrote:
People are arguing that Israel has no right to strike back at Hamas. People are arguing that Israel isn't "striking back" at Hamas. The premise is a lie. Hamas is "striking back" at Israel, btw. That doesn't make them justified in their targeting of civilians, nor does it make the question "ah but what else should Hamas do" an interesting one How kind of you to pull something out of context and treat it as a lone statement. You can't attack back at just Hamas because of their strategy of imbedding in civilians. Don't be so naive. In the context did you write "I realize that my portrayal of the argument I'm facing as "Israel has no right to strike back at Hamas" was inaccurate"? You would have to read my posts without hate in your heart for me and Israel which seems impossible for you. It is that they can not strike back against Hamas without killing a bunch of innocents. I've been extremely clear about this and you refuse to be remotely fair with me.
So I understood correctly, and I'm pointing out that they aren't striking back at Hamas.
|
|
|
|
|
On November 01 2023 22:32 JimmiC wrote:
I think the “best” option for Israel as hard as it would have been would have been to not respond and instead have used the massive pressure from the world to further sanction Iran and sanction Qatar for their support of the terrorist group.
This would never have happened. Possibly with Iran, but never with Qatar. They have a pretty high influence on the world stage, with politicians globally bending over backwards to please their oil-producing overlords, despite Qatar's rather lackluster relationship with human rights. The only reason Iran can't do the same is because they don't have the same vast wealth.
Money is just too big of a motivator. Not to digress too much, but you can just look at how companies and countries are stripping down to get rammed from behind by Winnie The Pooh over in China, just because not pleasing them means losing access to their markets. Fuck the Uyghurs, they're not going to pay us millions to watch the next Marvel movie after all!
|
On November 01 2023 18:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2023 16:45 RvB wrote:On November 01 2023 06:34 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 06:28 RvB wrote:On November 01 2023 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:On November 01 2023 03:59 RvB wrote:On November 01 2023 01:32 Nebuchad wrote: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
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. They're illegal yes. That does not make them an armed attack. Small scale violence does not automatically fall under that definition. Otherwise a border skirmish would trigger the right to self defense. Either way one of the conditions for self defense is necessity. As I pointed out there are other options to solve the settlements. So self defense does not apply. One of the salient points of this conflict is that it isn't a border because Israel is intent on not letting Palestinians have a state. I'm taking your house, I have an army supporting me (it's not an armed attack), you fight back how dare you attack me now I can respond in self-defense. This is absolutely a reasonable conversation between two adults and not some apologist bullshit. Israel already accepted a Palestinian state when they accepted the UN partition plan in 1947. There were two other offers they made for a two state solution after the Oslo accords. I am not accepting this as an answer to my post in the context of what we were discussing, it doesn't cover any of the topics. There's also no contradiction, Israel can have a position on a Palestinian state at the time and a different one today. Unless you plan to deny that they're very intent on not letting Palestinians have a state today I am not sure why you felt the need to write this. The settlers have killed more than 100 Palestinians in the West Bank since october 7th. If you make the mistake of going on Elon Musk's doomed social media site you can do a search with "South Hebron Hills" and you'll get a bunch of videos related to communities being threatened with weapons and forced to leave their homes.
Your claim is that Israel is not intent on Palestinians having a state. I'm pointing out that they've accepted the idea of a Palestinian state for decades. As I said earlier some of those negotiations included solutions for the settlements we were talking about. Accept the argument or don't. It's not my concern.
|
On November 01 2023 21:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yeah. There are attempts at understanding why Hamas does what Hamas does, at attempting to understand why they enjoy considerable support within Palestine/the islamic world ('they're shitty people doesn't really qualify), perhaps there have been examples of 'it's inevitable that Hamas will respond the way they do when they're subject to the treatment they are subjected to), but I haven't seen a single actual defense of the terrorist attack on October 7. People who critique Israel tend to qualify their posts with 'obviously Hamas are disgusting terrorists'.
Not saying that people are giving Israel a free pass - but I'm seeing far more people defend bombing of civilians on the Gaza strip (they have to do this to get to Hamas/stating that the death counts are fabricated) than I am seeing people defend killing Israeli civilians. I mean, I'm not here to defend killing Israeli civilians, I'm not even making an equivalence between the two, but there are elements of what Israel does which I find entirely condemnable and struggle seeing how is defensible even in 'an act of war'. While there are posters who are clear in their condemnation of settlement policies/ hindering water food and electricity even while having an overall 'I understand that Israel must do what it must do to squash Hamas', I definitely feel it as less ubiqitous from that side than I find the condemnation of Hamas from the 'pro-palestine'-side.
Our resident Rabbi on the other hand seemed to defend the blockade ('you can be sure that all the Palestinians who think with their stomach or wallet will start hating Hamas every time a missile is fired') and defined the settlements as 'Israeli settlers have been buying up empty hilltops and building houses on them'. I'm not interested in the semantics side of the argument, but I would have hoped that there are some areas where basically everyone could find themselves in agreement.
Maybe we should be intellectually investigating whether Hamas killing Israeli civilians can be argued as regrettable but necessary collateral damage in their self-defense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
