EPTThings Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 80
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
| ||
|
pmp10
3242 Posts
That's of course assuming there will be any Gaza left when all is said and done. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5276 Posts
i don't think those two sides will ever trust each other enough for peace talks/dispute negotiations. since israel is obviously the stronger military force between them, they'll just displace, jewishize, out-settle, kill the palestinians, until they'll get a jewish majority to secure their elections. but dude..., just fuck hamas; i would've gassed the tunnels then seal them with concrete and let the fuckers rot in there. the civilian issue is ... dark; i think israel hoped egipt would open the border crossing and let them camp in sinai but egipt refused so here we are, with them dying en masse. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6191 Posts
On November 04 2023 08:08 Liquid`Drone wrote: Mohdoo they're not launching nukes and Israel has pretty fantastic anti-rocket defense. According to this, 'tens of thousands' of rocket and mortar attacks have resulted in 27 Israeli civilian deaths (and 1900 injuries, not ignoring that). Consequently I think that yes, if rockets are being fired from a school, retaliating by bombing that school is deeply immoral and way out of proportion. I'm not saying they should ignore everything, but you honestly seem to be arguing in favor of 'in a hostage situation, killing the hostages is fine if it lets you kill the bad guys' to an absurd degree. If someone is shooting a rocket and that rocket has a 10% chance of injuring someone and a 0.15% chance of killing someone then retaliating in a way that has an 80%+ chance of killing several civilians does in fact strike me as deeply immoral. These equations obviously change depending on how dangerous someone is. If someone is about to nuke a city and you can only kill them by taking 1000 civilians, hey, sucks, but those civilians have to go. But if someone is a limited threat and the collateral damage is likely to be several tenfold the damage those people are likely to cause, again, different equation. People are actually largely in favor of and looking for holistic, complex answers that protect civilian life on both sides, whereas you seem to be trying to turn it into some simplistic dichotomy where we're either in favor of Hamas killing Israelis with impunity or we just have to accept that palestinian civilian lives are worthless as long as Hamas uses them as hostages. In general, people understand the need for a military response and the need for a neutering of Hamas, but not at every price. It's kinda like you're arguing for killing the north korean leadership to liberate the population of north korea, and then someone saying 'but then they'll nuke Seoul' makes you respond with 'so you're saying we should just let the kim dynasty oppress their population with no repercussions??' and we're like 'I mean that sucks and we don't like that at all but it's better than Seoul being nuked'. Sometimes damage control is the best we can do, then steps towards a lasting peace has to be a parallel effort achieved in other ways. Targeting the leadership that lives outside Gaza could be one thing. Tempting Iran in some way might be another. Disbanding settlements and returning stolen land/homes could be a third. But stuff like 'force 2-10 million people to move somewhere else' isn't a viable option, nor is bombing a school to get a rocket launcher. Viewing proportionality in that way is an incentive to use civilians as a shield and a disincentive to protect them. The example you're giving is effectively punishing Israel for having an effective defense against Hamas' rockets and rewarding Hamas for storing weapons in schools. If you consider that moral then your moral compass is off. Proportionality should be understood in two ways: 1. On a macro level where proportional is the amount of force necessary to prevent or respond to the attack. In this conflict that means Israel destroying the operational capability of Hamas and removing them as government of Gaza is proportional because Hamas has the destruction of Israel as an objective and has said that they'll keep repeating attacks like 7/10. 2. On a micro level where the damage has to be proportional to the military advantage from the attack. For instance, if there are only a few weapons inside the target but a lot of civilians it's not a legitimate target. Vice versa it is a legitimate target. That can include schools and hospitals but of course extra care is required. Edit: on number 2 is where I think Israel makes most mistakes in regards to proportionality. It looks like their strikes sometimes have more damage than is proportionate. But that is also hard to verify because Israel does not let in independent observers and does not cooperate with the UN. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11926 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + "The notions of crime against humanity, war crimes, are not a question of degree, they're a question of essence. In other words, a bomb, when it explodes and it does some collateral damage, will probably kill children, but those children won't die facing the feeling that humanity has betrayed everything that they're entitled to expect. What is truly horrible is to picture those children who had 8-9-10 years, those women, who died and what they last saw was inhumanity, atrocity, of scorn for what they are. That's where we see a crime against humanity, absolute negation, and I think we ought to explain it more because otherwise emotion prevails and we see all of the victims as equal. The manner in which they were killed was different and speaks to our inhumanity, or to our humanity." | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17848 Posts
Now the problem with this reasoning at this moment and in the current context, is that Hamas killed at most a few hundred children in their crimes against humanity, whereas Israel has already killed more than that "in self defence", and with 95% of Gazans currently being denied clean water, that number is going to rise to the tens of thousands, even if there were to be a ceasefire right now. The context of what Israel is currently doing isn't justice or self-defence, it's revenge. And that invalidates anything about proportionality. Firstly because they're not (only) trying to hit legitimate military targets, but are killing pretty much indiscriminately. And secondly because the whole point of revenge is for it to be utterly disproportionate. Anyway, I mostly came here to link dump an opinion by Jonathan Freedman about the "day after": it seems Mohdoo thinks there never will be such a day, but for those slightly less enthusiastic about ethnic cleansing, it's a good read: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/03/war-israel-hamas-conflict-peace-extremists | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21362 Posts
On November 04 2023 08:46 Magic Powers wrote: Because the pro-Israel side knows that once you start having that discussion any justification for the current atrocities evaporates.I'm missing the part of the discussion that concludes that the terrorist organization of Hamas can be brought to its knees through military intervention. Where is that argument and why is it not being discussed? I strongly disagree with the idea and I've yet to see a compelling argument that the plan can realistically work, at least without a full and indefinite occupation of Gaza. Does anyone actually truly believe that Israel can destroy Hamas militarily or is that only political chest beating? Multiple people have brought up that killing Hamas involves killing (almost) everyone in Gaza, but every time its mentioned it gets conveniently ignored. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
I'm hoping the US withdraws all military support. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
pmp10
3242 Posts
On November 04 2023 19:07 Gorsameth wrote: Multiple people have brought up that killing Hamas involves killing (almost) everyone in Gaza, but every time its mentioned it gets conveniently ignored. Or maybe it's just patently false. Like any organization Hamas can be destroyed when enough of their members are killed, imprisoned or forced to run. The international-political side might be a little more tricky to eradicate but then they not about to lob missiles from Qatar. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2520 Posts
However the hostages seems to be an even bigger obstacle to a possible cease fire than anything else. It was stated early on that utilities would not be turned on before everyone was released and a cease fire was impossible as well even when the US suggested it. That implies it could be possible if they were At this point they have no value (and are obviously an extreme warcrime in themselves). If Hamas cared even sligthly for their own people the only logical action would be to release them. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13738 Posts
On November 04 2023 19:14 Magic Powers wrote: In conflicts, total numbers don't mean that much to me, I care strictly about preventable death and suffering. One preventable death of one innocent person is one too many, and to me it's equal to a million deaths. A preventable death can never be justified, but it can be forgiven if realistically it allows the prevention of other deaths. The IDF hasn't been following this principle. Their method of destruction is far too indiscriminate and pointless and therefore in my eyes their criminality is now almost equal to that of Hamas. I'm hoping the US withdraws all military support. I would argue that the Us withdrawing its military support now only guarentees that the war sprawls out into a much larger regional conflict. The US sitting two aircraft carrier battle groups and the marine expeditionary force is whats keeping things from getting much much worse. | ||
|
Cerebrate1
265 Posts
On November 03 2023 16:08 Salazarz wrote: By that logic, Russian mercs signing up to fight for Wagner in Ukraine shouldn't be classified as greedy or evil, either. They're just people living their lives, right? I wouldn't personally equate shooting people to buying a house, no. But if you want a better point of comparison, you should know that most of the workers building those settlements are local Palestinians. Are they greedy evil people as well? They are literally accepting money in exchange for making these houses. Or maybe they are just people taking a job without concern for the national level consequences of their personal decisions. (It should be noted that these workers have as much ancestral heritage to these previously undeveloped hills as their neighbours, and they are tacitly agreeing to the building of Israeli homes there. Unless the NIMBY neighbours have more ancestral heritage for some reason.) In any case, my points on this topic have been about defending the humanity of the average settler, and showing that on a micro level, there is nothing wrong with building or buying a house in a field. I think a better argument about the problem of settlements is on a national level. That Palestinians want self determination, which means a state. And a state needs land. The problem is that the Israeli courts are too neutral. Since Israelis have more money, they can legally acquire and develop land more easily than Palestinians. In order to achieve equity instead of just equality, Israel would have to enact laws against Israeli land purchase. With the right government, they would do that. And if Hamas is eliminated and Bibi removed from power (and this war is likely to lead to both), we may just get that government. | ||
|
Cerebrate1
265 Posts
On November 04 2023 06:06 Gahlo wrote: "Fuck it, there's ___ down there somewhere" is good policy when you've got an excellent wide receiver, not when you're sending explosives to a place the size of Philadelphia with 5/3rds the population. Israeli munitions are pretty accurate and they are going to great lengths to minimize collateral casualties as much as possible without just letting the terrorists win. Your concern about the population density would be more relevant if they weren't doing those things. Like, if they just tried to win by launching a salvo of Hamas style rockets into Gaza, we'd be counting the casualties in the hundreds of thousands right now. But it's pretty clear they aren't doing that. Heck, they are still making an evacuation corridor for civilians still in the north, weeks after all the robocalls and pamphlet drops to encourage evacuation. | ||
|
Slydie
1898 Posts
On November 05 2023 15:56 Cerebrate1 wrote: Israeli munitions are pretty accurate and they are going to great lengths to minimize collateral casualties as much as possible without just letting the terrorists win. Your concern about the population density would be more relevant if they weren't doing those things. Like, if they just tried to win by launching a salvo of Hamas style rockets into Gaza, we'd be counting the casualties in the hundreds of thousands right now. But it's pretty clear they aren't doing that. Heck, they are still making an evacuation corridor for civilians still in the north, weeks after all the robocalls and pamphlet drops to encourage evacuation. Netanyahu is a kind and considerate leader, always aware of the needs of the Palestinian people. /s | ||
|
Cerebrate1
265 Posts
On November 05 2023 16:24 Slydie wrote: Netanyahu is a kind and considerate leader, always aware of the needs of the Palestinian people. /s Fortunately, he is not an absolute monarch and there are a lot of forces within and without Israel that affect what the army does besides just the Prime Minister's whims. But the facts speak for themselves. Do you deny that robo calls happened? Pamphlet drops? Roof knocking? That the Israeli army set up a humanitarian corridor from the north of the strip (even though clearing the roads left them exposed to an attack from Hamas forces in the area)? | ||
|
Cerebrate1
265 Posts
On November 04 2023 08:46 Magic Powers wrote: I'm missing the part of the discussion that concludes that the terrorist organization of Hamas can be brought to its knees through military intervention. Where is that argument and why is it not being discussed? I strongly disagree with the idea and I've yet to see a compelling argument that the plan can realistically work, at least without a full and indefinite occupation of Gaza. Does anyone actually truly believe that Israel can destroy Hamas militarily or is that only political chest beating? Can the terrorist organization ISIS be destroyed by military intervention? Because it effectively was. I mentioned this before, but terrorists in caves are a lot less powerful (i.e. dangerous) than terrorists governing cities. You are correct that someone else with guns will have to govern there to prevent Hamas from just taking over again though, so if Hamas is taken out, that is what will happen. Which leads me to a question I've been meaning to ask here: If Israel successfully removes Hamas as the governing power in Gaza, who do you think should be put in charge of Gaza temporarily to ensure the best long term peaceful future for Israelis and Palestinians? Meaning, all of these come with an understanding of the power letting Gaza rule itself after some sort of de-radicalization Martial Plan type process. (All of these have issues, but I'll list them in the order I see as probably best to worst [if they would agree to do it].) 1. A coalition of Arab states (who have normalized relations with Israel) 2. Egypt 3. The PA 4. NATO 5. Israel 6. The UN 7. Immediate elections in Gaza Edit: added the normalization parenthetical for the Arab coalition to exclude Syria and Qatar from intentionally ruining the de-radicalization process. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17848 Posts
On November 05 2023 16:57 Cerebrate1 wrote: Can the terrorist organization ISIS be destroyed by military intervention? Because it effectively was. I mentioned this before, but terrorists in caves are a lot less powerful (i.e. dangerous) than terrorists governing cities. You are correct that someone else with guns will have to govern there to prevent Hamas from just taking over again though, so if Hamas is taken out, that is what will happen. Which leads me to a question I've been meaning to ask here: If Israel successfully removes Hamas as the governing power in Gaza, who do you think should be put in charge of Gaza temporarily to ensure the best long term peaceful future for Israelis and Palestinians? Meaning, all of these come with an understanding of the power letting Gaza rule itself after some sort of de-radicalization Martial Plan type process. (All of these have issues, but I'll list them in the order I see as probably best to worst [if they would agree to do it].) 1. A coalition of Arab states (who have normalized relations with Israel) 2. Egypt 3. The PA 4. NATO 5. Israel 6. The UN 7. Immediate elections in Gaza Edit: added the normalization parenthetical for the Arab coalition to exclude Syria and Qatar from intentionally ruining the de-radicalization process. Ideally 3 into 7 asap. But the PA is a paper tiger and Hamas would just take over again. So a combination of 1 and 6 (there is no reason said coalition shouldn't have a UN mandate). The worst options would be 4 or 5. Realistically, though, you have a brainwashed, unemployed population of adolescents. Even if you manage to eradicate Hamas, PIJ, ISIS, Hezbollah or something new will just take over. The population of Gaza has nowhere to go, nothing to doand no power to change that. They deeply resents Israel for causing that. Regardless of whether that resentment is justified or not, it'll take generations to undo the effects of the last 30 years of Gaza policy. | ||
|
Slydie
1898 Posts
On November 05 2023 16:55 Cerebrate1 wrote: Fortunately, he is not an absolute monarch and there are a lot of forces within and without Israel that affect what the army does besides just the Prime Minister's whims. But the facts speak for themselves. Do you deny that robo calls happened? Pamphlet drops? Roof knocking? That the Israeli army set up a humanitarian corridor from the north of the strip (even though clearing the roads left them exposed to an attack from Hamas forces in the area)? Of course not, there are two sides of this conflict, and in this case, there is no dispute who threw the first stone. The question for me, and many others is: why did they attack, and what is a proper response. For Israel and their supporters, the attack gives a free pass for any action, including eventually flattening Gaza, turning it into a tent village or displace all Palestinians to Egypt. I strongly disagree. For Israel, even a short term win can be a long term loss. This is not a region where actions are forgotten, and there are talks of revenge of conflicts centuries and even millennia ago. Outside of the US, Israel is losing support by the day, and if the US loses its grip on the western consensus, Israel is in deep trouble. The Israeli PR machine is fighting back, by spamming Facebook and media outlets with emotional reports from the initial Hamas attack. Their own actions are ignored, both how the Palestinians have been treated for the last decades and in the current conflict. They are very easy to see through. The difference of the "value" of a Palestinian and an Israeli life is disgusting. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On November 05 2023 10:22 Sermokala wrote: I would argue that the Us withdrawing its military support now only guarentees that the war sprawls out into a much larger regional conflict. The US sitting two aircraft carrier battle groups and the marine expeditionary force is whats keeping things from getting much much worse. I understand this point of view and normally I'd agree with it. But I think the Netanjahu administration also understands this very well and that's why the US should put pressure on them as much as possible. If the US can credibly be expected to withdraw, the IDF will highly likely be ordered to also withdraw and Netanjahu will be forced to work towards a ceasefire. | ||
| ||
