|
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 05 2023 16:57 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
ISIS was and still is not primarily state funded. They couldn't afford to continue fighting a war with the US forever.
Hamas' backers are mostly governments; those of Qatar and Iran are the biggest.
Furthermore, today by the by Jihadis still exist to roughly the same extent as they existed during prime ISIS days.
And how can I leave out the US' biggest failure to date: Afghanistan. The Taliban successfully persevered and the US withdrew. Afghanistan is yet again oppressed.
You can't compare Hamas to ISIS, they have completely different network and culture. They're tied to the Gazan people. And where ISIS had to hide from the US, Hamas really doesn't. They fight more or less out in the open because they have the support required for it.
The bloodshed of innocent lives that is required to destroy Hamas is unacceptable.
|
On November 05 2023 15:56 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2023 06:06 Gahlo wrote:On November 04 2023 04:28 Mohdoo wrote:On November 04 2023 03:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Welp, another war crime documented and admitted to. By both sides.
A war crime committed by Hamas. Hamas has recently reiterated their view that Palestinian civilians who die from attacks like this are martyrs, and that it is all worthwhile. "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.
Then the thousands of casualties are even worse. The sheer level of destruction that we're seeing will require ethnic cleansing, because boy howdy are those that get mercifully left alive going to be mighty pissed about it. But I guess it's only terrorism if somebody isn't being supplied US military aid.
Also, thoughts on the main generator and solar cells for one of the recent attacks on a hospital? Or are all hospitals forfeit because Hamas might be there?
|
On November 05 2023 18:26 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2023 16:55 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 05 2023 16:24 Slydie wrote:On November 05 2023 15:56 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 04 2023 06:06 Gahlo wrote:On November 04 2023 04:28 Mohdoo wrote:A war crime committed by Hamas. Hamas has recently reiterated their view that Palestinian civilians who die from attacks like this are martyrs, and that it is all worthwhile. "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. 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)? The Israeli PR machine is fighting back, by spamming Facebook and media outlets with emotional reports from the initial Hamas attack.
As a sidenote I thought that this strategy was a little revealing. Virtually nobody is denying that Hamas attacked Israel on Oct 7th, that's not what the discussion has been about. The mindset appears to be, well of course now that Hamas has done this we get to do what we've always wanted to do, and these people are still against us? It must be that they don't believe Hamas has done this, we need to prove it to them.
|
On November 05 2023 18:26 Slydie wrote:
The question for me, and many others is: why did they attack, and what is a proper response.
Why is obvious - desperation.
Anyone can see the situation is slowly heading toward a 'single-state' solution and diplomatic normalization with Arab states was making inevitable progress.
Hamas gambled that violence will spark unrest in the region and reverse Israeli gains.
By now it's pretty safe to say that it's a gamble they have lost.
On November 05 2023 18:26 Slydie wrote:
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.
If anything we can see the opposite.
Almost no changes are visible in the wider middle-east so far.
Plenty of middle-eastern powers will be glad to be rid of Hamas, even if they have to publicly cry crocodile tears or launch missiles for the sake of appearances
|
No surprise as that comment was a true "wtf" moment. Not to mention such a strike would kill millions of Israeli's at the same time.
JERUSALEM, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday disciplined a junior member of his cabinet who appeared to voice openness to the idea of Israel carrying out a nuclear strike on Gaza, where the war with Hamas is inflicting a spiralling Palestinian civilian toll.
Netanyahu's office issued a statement saying that the minister concerned - Heritage Minister Amihay Eliyahu, from a far-right party in the coalition government - had been suspended from cabinet meetings "until further notice".
Asked in a radio interview about a hypothetical nuclear option, Eliyahu had replied: "That's one way."
His remark drew swift condemnation from around the Arab world, scandalised mainstream Israeli broadcasters and was deemed "objectionable" by a U.S. official.
Neither Eliyahu or his party leader are in the streamlined ministerial forum running the Gaza war. Neither would they have inside knowledge of Israel's nuclear capabilities - which it does not publicly acknowledge - or authority to activate them.
"Eliyahu's statements are not based in reality. Israel and the IDF (military) are operating in accordance with the highest standards of international law to avoid harming innocents. We will continue to do so until our victory," Netanyahu's office said.
The League of Arab States said in a statement: "The racist statements of Israeli Minister Eliyahu are revealing. Not only does he admit that they possess a nuclear weapon, but he also confirms the reality of the Israelis’ abhorrent racist view towards the Palestinian people."
Some 9,500 Palestinians have been killed in the war, stirring widening international concern over Israel's tactics.
The crisis prompted another troubleshooting visit to the Middle East by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken over the weekend.
“Obviously that was an objectionable statement and the prime minister made very clear that he (Eliyahu) wasn’t speaking on behalf of the government," a senior U.S. State Department official said.
Eliyahu said in a social media post: "It is clear to anyone who is sensible that the nuclear remark was metaphorical."
But he added: "A strong and disproportionate response to terrorism is definitely required, which will clarify to the Nazis and their supporters that terrorism is not worthwhile."
A spokesperson for Hamas, an Islamist group that advocates Israel's destruction, said Eliyahu represented "unprecedented criminal Israeli terrorism (that) constitutes a danger to the entire region and the world".
In Eliyahu's Kol Barama radio interview, it was noted that ravaging Gaza would endanger some 240 hostages - among them foreigners as well as Israelis - held since Hamas sparked the war with an Oct 7 cross-border assault that killed 1,400 people.
"In war, you pay a price," the minister responded, while adding that he was praying for the return of the hostages.
Benny Gantz, a centrist ex-general who joined the conservative Netanyahu from the opposition in the streamlined war cabinet, said Eliyahu's remarks had been damaging "and, even worse, added to the pain of the hostages' families at home".
Source
|
On November 05 2023 19:20 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2023 16:57 Cerebrate1 wrote: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. ISIS was and still is not primarily state funded. They couldn't afford to continue fighting a war with the US forever. Hamas' backers are mostly governments; those of Qatar and Iran are the biggest. Furthermore, today by the by Jihadis still exist to roughly the same extent as they existed during prime ISIS days. And how can I leave out the US' biggest failure to date: Afghanistan. The Taliban successfully persevered and the US withdrew. Afghanistan is yet again oppressed. You can't compare Hamas to ISIS, they have completely different network and culture. They're tied to the Gazan people. And where ISIS had to hide from the US, Hamas really doesn't. They fight more or less out in the open because they have the support required for it. The bloodshed of innocent lives that is required to destroy Hamas is unacceptable.
I agree with your point about funding from Iran and Qatar making de-radicalization of Gazans significantly more difficult. That would have to be addressed somehow for lasting peace to be achieved.
Your point about there being as many Jihadis now as during ISIS actually supports my point about defanging Hamas. That is, compare the number of atrocities committed by ISIS when it had territory to the number committed by a similar number of extremists without territory now. Having a state gives extremists a lot of power to enact their agenda and without it, they are more likely to just plot in caves.
I agree that it's worth investigating why Germany and Japan were successfully reformed, and even Iraq post ISIS was relatively successful, while Afghanistan was not. We'd want to identify the factors worth replicating in the former cases while avoiding mistakes of the latter.
|
i wouldn't really call what was "East Germany" from 1945 to 1990 as a successful reform.
|
On November 06 2023 06:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2023 19:20 Magic Powers wrote:On November 05 2023 16:57 Cerebrate1 wrote: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. ISIS was and still is not primarily state funded. They couldn't afford to continue fighting a war with the US forever. Hamas' backers are mostly governments; those of Qatar and Iran are the biggest. Furthermore, today by the by Jihadis still exist to roughly the same extent as they existed during prime ISIS days. And how can I leave out the US' biggest failure to date: Afghanistan. The Taliban successfully persevered and the US withdrew. Afghanistan is yet again oppressed. You can't compare Hamas to ISIS, they have completely different network and culture. They're tied to the Gazan people. And where ISIS had to hide from the US, Hamas really doesn't. They fight more or less out in the open because they have the support required for it. The bloodshed of innocent lives that is required to destroy Hamas is unacceptable. I agree with your point about funding from Iran and Qatar making de-radicalization of Gazans significantly more difficult. That would have to be addressed somehow for lasting peace to be achieved. Your point about there being as many Jihadis now as during ISIS actually supports my point about defanging Hamas. That is, compare the number of atrocities committed by ISIS when it had territory to the number committed by a similar number of extremists without territory now. Having a state gives extremists a lot of power to enact their agenda and without it, they are more likely to just plot in caves. I agree that it's worth investigating why Germany and Japan were successfully reformed, and even Iraq post ISIS was relatively successful, while Afghanistan was not. We'd want to identify the factors worth replicating in the former cases while avoiding mistakes of the latter.
You want Gaza to be reformed? Like Iran and Afghanistan were reformed? How did that work out?
|
On November 05 2023 15:37 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2023 16:08 Salazarz wrote:On November 03 2023 13:38 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Still, categorizing your average person who buys a house in a settlement as greedy or evil would be inaccurate. They are just people living their lives. 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.
What I'm asking you to consider here is willing participation in an apartheid colonization, not buying a house. Plenty of people in Israel and elsewhere find ways to buy a house without being party to an ethnic cleansing project. Do you think actively participating in apartheid colonization is the same as just buying a house?
|
Iran and Afghanistan are not similar to Gaza. In Iran the government is the problem and not the people. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and a tribal society. It has suffered decades of war that were much worse than what we've seen in Gaza. Afghanistan required building institutions and a national identity from the bottom up. Something there was no plan for and Pakistan directly sabotaged.
Gaza already has many institutions, receives a lot of aid, has a national identity, borders two countries that do not like terrorism of which one is developed, and was one of the fastest growing regions before the intifada. Iran interferes but is not a neighbour, limiting its influence as opposed to Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iran/Iraq. There are many problems like there not being a solution to the conflict with Israel and the corruption of the PA but a concerted effort of the international community and neighbouring countries has some potential.
|
On November 06 2023 11:04 RvB wrote:
Iran and Afghanistan are not similar to Gaza. In Iran the government is the problem and not the people. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and a tribal society. It has suffered decades of war that were much worse than what we've seen in Gaza. Afghanistan required building institutions and a national identity from the bottom up. Something there was no plan for and Pakistan directly sabotaged.
Gaza already has many institutions, receives a lot of aid, has a national identity, borders two countries that do not like terrorism of which one is developed, and was one of the fastest growing regions before the intifada. Iran interferes but is not a neighbour, limiting its influence as opposed to Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iran/Iraq. There are many problems like there not being a solution to the conflict with Israel and the corruption of the PA but a concerted effort of the international community and neighbouring countries has some potential.
I've rarely disagreed with a comment more than this one. It's difficult for me to address honestly because there's so much that doesn't describe reality as I know it.
|
On November 06 2023 07:23 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2023 06:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 05 2023 19:20 Magic Powers wrote:On November 05 2023 16:57 Cerebrate1 wrote: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. ISIS was and still is not primarily state funded. They couldn't afford to continue fighting a war with the US forever. Hamas' backers are mostly governments; those of Qatar and Iran are the biggest. Furthermore, today by the by Jihadis still exist to roughly the same extent as they existed during prime ISIS days. And how can I leave out the US' biggest failure to date: Afghanistan. The Taliban successfully persevered and the US withdrew. Afghanistan is yet again oppressed. You can't compare Hamas to ISIS, they have completely different network and culture. They're tied to the Gazan people. And where ISIS had to hide from the US, Hamas really doesn't. They fight more or less out in the open because they have the support required for it. The bloodshed of innocent lives that is required to destroy Hamas is unacceptable. I agree with your point about funding from Iran and Qatar making de-radicalization of Gazans significantly more difficult. That would have to be addressed somehow for lasting peace to be achieved. Your point about there being as many Jihadis now as during ISIS actually supports my point about defanging Hamas. That is, compare the number of atrocities committed by ISIS when it had territory to the number committed by a similar number of extremists without territory now. Having a state gives extremists a lot of power to enact their agenda and without it, they are more likely to just plot in caves. I agree that it's worth investigating why Germany and Japan were successfully reformed, and even Iraq post ISIS was relatively successful, while Afghanistan was not. We'd want to identify the factors worth replicating in the former cases while avoiding mistakes of the latter. You want Gaza to be reformed? Like Iran and Afghanistan were reformed? How did that work out?
So then what is left? Not able to militarily engage Hamas because of civilian casualties. Not able to reform Gaza.
It feels like a lot of folks are experiencing the mental process where it feels like nothing bad happens if a given situation is not responded to. The whole point is that something bad happens if nothing is done, so something needs to be done. So without some sort of action taken to change the Gaza/Hamas situation, it is reasonable to assume October 7 will be repeated. And I am hoping/assuming folks agree that is an unacceptable situation.
I feel like the minimum of "what comes next" needs to provide some non-zero reduction in the % chance October 7 is prevented. In the absence of giving Israel some form of assurance October 7 won't be repeated, the condition created is "October 7 will be repeated in the future". Its not that everything pauses until a solution is found. Its not that the tragedy/difficulty of the situation causes god to say "hold on, this is very bad, so I will now make it so that bad things regarding this situation do not happen for the next however long, because people need time to think of a better solution".
I'm not sure how to phrase/describe the natural instinct that kicks in for people regarding these situations. But it is essentially a form of paralysis, where people aren't able to conceptualize the only choices are all terrible and its only a matter of deciding which terrible one to choose. It is as if there is a mental process that kicks in that prevents someone from fully internalizing the inevitability of a bad outcome in the absence of prevention. I see a lot of people fall into this with the Gaza situation where every single solution is unacceptable and the natural conclusion ends up being "we should just let October 7 happen again". But it also feels like people are not recognizing this is the result of doing nothing.
|
Letting October 7 happen again would definitely be the better choice compared to letting a few tens of thousands Gazan civilians get slaughtered and relocate the rest to... Montana was it?
|
On November 07 2023 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2023 07:23 Magic Powers wrote:On November 06 2023 06:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 05 2023 19:20 Magic Powers wrote:On November 05 2023 16:57 Cerebrate1 wrote: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. ISIS was and still is not primarily state funded. They couldn't afford to continue fighting a war with the US forever. Hamas' backers are mostly governments; those of Qatar and Iran are the biggest. Furthermore, today by the by Jihadis still exist to roughly the same extent as they existed during prime ISIS days. And how can I leave out the US' biggest failure to date: Afghanistan. The Taliban successfully persevered and the US withdrew. Afghanistan is yet again oppressed. You can't compare Hamas to ISIS, they have completely different network and culture. They're tied to the Gazan people. And where ISIS had to hide from the US, Hamas really doesn't. They fight more or less out in the open because they have the support required for it. The bloodshed of innocent lives that is required to destroy Hamas is unacceptable. I agree with your point about funding from Iran and Qatar making de-radicalization of Gazans significantly more difficult. That would have to be addressed somehow for lasting peace to be achieved. Your point about there being as many Jihadis now as during ISIS actually supports my point about defanging Hamas. That is, compare the number of atrocities committed by ISIS when it had territory to the number committed by a similar number of extremists without territory now. Having a state gives extremists a lot of power to enact their agenda and without it, they are more likely to just plot in caves. I agree that it's worth investigating why Germany and Japan were successfully reformed, and even Iraq post ISIS was relatively successful, while Afghanistan was not. We'd want to identify the factors worth replicating in the former cases while avoiding mistakes of the latter. You want Gaza to be reformed? Like Iran and Afghanistan were reformed? How did that work out? So then what is left? Not able to militarily engage Hamas because of civilian casualties. Not able to reform Gaza. It feels like a lot of folks are experiencing the mental process where it feels like nothing bad happens if a given situation is not responded to. The whole point is that something bad happens if nothing is done, so something needs to be done. So without some sort of action taken to change the Gaza/Hamas situation, it is reasonable to assume October 7 will be repeated. And I am hoping/assuming folks agree that is an unacceptable situation. I feel like the minimum of "what comes next" needs to provide some non-zero reduction in the % chance October 7 is prevented. In the absence of giving Israel some form of assurance October 7 won't be repeated, the condition created is "October 7 will be repeated in the future". Its not that everything pauses until a solution is found. Its not that the tragedy/difficulty of the situation causes god to say "hold on, this is very bad, so I will now make it so that bad things regarding this situation do not happen for the next however long, because people need time to think of a better solution". I'm not sure how to phrase/describe the natural instinct that kicks in for people regarding these situations. But it is essentially a form of paralysis, where people aren't able to conceptualize the only choices are all terrible and its only a matter of deciding which terrible one to choose. It is as if there is a mental process that kicks in that prevents someone from fully internalizing the inevitability of a bad outcome in the absence of prevention. I see a lot of people fall into this with the Gaza situation where every single solution is unacceptable and the natural conclusion ends up being "we should just let October 7 happen again". But it also feels like people are not recognizing this is the result of doing nothing.
I don't have a solution and I don't think anyone has one. October 7 will be repeated unless Israel occupies Gaza. Israel has had enough chances to make things right. Their administration chose to make things much worse. If they have a heart, they will understand that they have to take the high road: leave Gaza and enact a ceasefire. Realistically though I don't think the current Israeli government has a heart. At this point I don't understand what they have other than burning hatred.
It frustrates me that the US is so soft on them. Hamas attacked first, but that doesn't give them the right to commit atrocities against the civilian population of Gaza. Two wrongs don't make a right. They don't have the right to bombard them or invade them and the world needs to make this as clear to them as possible. That's why I'm praying for a withdrawal of all US military support.
|
On November 07 2023 09:10 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2023 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:On November 06 2023 07:23 Magic Powers wrote:On November 06 2023 06:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 05 2023 19:20 Magic Powers wrote:On November 05 2023 16:57 Cerebrate1 wrote: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. ISIS was and still is not primarily state funded. They couldn't afford to continue fighting a war with the US forever. Hamas' backers are mostly governments; those of Qatar and Iran are the biggest. Furthermore, today by the by Jihadis still exist to roughly the same extent as they existed during prime ISIS days. And how can I leave out the US' biggest failure to date: Afghanistan. The Taliban successfully persevered and the US withdrew. Afghanistan is yet again oppressed. You can't compare Hamas to ISIS, they have completely different network and culture. They're tied to the Gazan people. And where ISIS had to hide from the US, Hamas really doesn't. They fight more or less out in the open because they have the support required for it. The bloodshed of innocent lives that is required to destroy Hamas is unacceptable. I agree with your point about funding from Iran and Qatar making de-radicalization of Gazans significantly more difficult. That would have to be addressed somehow for lasting peace to be achieved. Your point about there being as many Jihadis now as during ISIS actually supports my point about defanging Hamas. That is, compare the number of atrocities committed by ISIS when it had territory to the number committed by a similar number of extremists without territory now. Having a state gives extremists a lot of power to enact their agenda and without it, they are more likely to just plot in caves. I agree that it's worth investigating why Germany and Japan were successfully reformed, and even Iraq post ISIS was relatively successful, while Afghanistan was not. We'd want to identify the factors worth replicating in the former cases while avoiding mistakes of the latter. You want Gaza to be reformed? Like Iran and Afghanistan were reformed? How did that work out? So then what is left? Not able to militarily engage Hamas because of civilian casualties. Not able to reform Gaza. It feels like a lot of folks are experiencing the mental process where it feels like nothing bad happens if a given situation is not responded to. The whole point is that something bad happens if nothing is done, so something needs to be done. So without some sort of action taken to change the Gaza/Hamas situation, it is reasonable to assume October 7 will be repeated. And I am hoping/assuming folks agree that is an unacceptable situation. I feel like the minimum of "what comes next" needs to provide some non-zero reduction in the % chance October 7 is prevented. In the absence of giving Israel some form of assurance October 7 won't be repeated, the condition created is "October 7 will be repeated in the future". Its not that everything pauses until a solution is found. Its not that the tragedy/difficulty of the situation causes god to say "hold on, this is very bad, so I will now make it so that bad things regarding this situation do not happen for the next however long, because people need time to think of a better solution". I'm not sure how to phrase/describe the natural instinct that kicks in for people regarding these situations. But it is essentially a form of paralysis, where people aren't able to conceptualize the only choices are all terrible and its only a matter of deciding which terrible one to choose. It is as if there is a mental process that kicks in that prevents someone from fully internalizing the inevitability of a bad outcome in the absence of prevention. I see a lot of people fall into this with the Gaza situation where every single solution is unacceptable and the natural conclusion ends up being "we should just let October 7 happen again". But it also feels like people are not recognizing this is the result of doing nothing. I don't have a solution and I don't think anyone has one. October 7 will be repeated unless Israel occupies Gaza. Israel has had enough chances to make things right. Their administration chose to make things much worse. If they have a heart, they will understand that they have to take the high road: leave Gaza and enact a ceasefire. Realistically though I don't think the current Israeli government has a heart. At this point I don't understand what they have other than burning hatred. It frustrates me that the US is so soft on them. Hamas attacked first, but that doesn't give them the right to commit atrocities against the civilian population of Gaza. Two wrongs don't make a right. They don't have the right to bombard them or invade them and the world needs to make this as clear to them as possible. That's why I'm praying for a withdrawal of all US military support.
What you seem to be preaching is pacifism. Pacifism does not stop bad actors. If the police in your city applied your principle of "two wrongs don't make a right" and didn't arrest suspects to try to imprison murderers, anarchy would ensue and people could murder whomever they pleased since there would be no fear of punishment.
This applies on a national level as well. If the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor and the US was like, "well, two wrongs don't make a right, better just call a ceasefire." Imperial Japan would be ruling most of Asia to this day and would be emboldened to kill whomever they want, whenever they want.
The Allies actually did try your strategy with Nazi Germany for quite a while. It was called "Appeasement." It allowed the Germans to massively increase their territory before anyone serious finally realized that enough was enough. Because of this hesitance to act, the Nazi's had half of Europe and correspondingly massive industrial output by the time the real war started and were very difficult to stop.
As for the cost, the Allies killed over 8 million German civilians in WW2 (on top of military personnel) and bombed every German city to rubble. That was some 10% of the population of Germany at the time (for comparison, even if we accept Hamas casualty counts as not wildly inflated, we aren't even talking about half a percent of Gazans, and most of those are militants.)
Is that terrible? Yes, war always is. That's why starting a war like Hamas did on Oct 7 is so awful. But that doesn't mean Israel should just surrender to the aggressor of this war and appease them.
|
On November 07 2023 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2023 07:23 Magic Powers wrote:On November 06 2023 06:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 05 2023 19:20 Magic Powers wrote:On November 05 2023 16:57 Cerebrate1 wrote: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. ISIS was and still is not primarily state funded. They couldn't afford to continue fighting a war with the US forever. Hamas' backers are mostly governments; those of Qatar and Iran are the biggest. Furthermore, today by the by Jihadis still exist to roughly the same extent as they existed during prime ISIS days. And how can I leave out the US' biggest failure to date: Afghanistan. The Taliban successfully persevered and the US withdrew. Afghanistan is yet again oppressed. You can't compare Hamas to ISIS, they have completely different network and culture. They're tied to the Gazan people. And where ISIS had to hide from the US, Hamas really doesn't. They fight more or less out in the open because they have the support required for it. The bloodshed of innocent lives that is required to destroy Hamas is unacceptable. I agree with your point about funding from Iran and Qatar making de-radicalization of Gazans significantly more difficult. That would have to be addressed somehow for lasting peace to be achieved. Your point about there being as many Jihadis now as during ISIS actually supports my point about defanging Hamas. That is, compare the number of atrocities committed by ISIS when it had territory to the number committed by a similar number of extremists without territory now. Having a state gives extremists a lot of power to enact their agenda and without it, they are more likely to just plot in caves. I agree that it's worth investigating why Germany and Japan were successfully reformed, and even Iraq post ISIS was relatively successful, while Afghanistan was not. We'd want to identify the factors worth replicating in the former cases while avoiding mistakes of the latter. You want Gaza to be reformed? Like Iran and Afghanistan were reformed? How did that work out? So then what is left? Not able to militarily engage Hamas because of civilian casualties. Not able to reform Gaza. It feels like a lot of folks are experiencing the mental process where it feels like nothing bad happens if a given situation is not responded to. The whole point is that something bad happens if nothing is done, so something needs to be done. So without some sort of action taken to change the Gaza/Hamas situation, it is reasonable to assume October 7 will be repeated. And I am hoping/assuming folks agree that is an unacceptable situation. I feel like the minimum of "what comes next" needs to provide some non-zero reduction in the % chance October 7 is prevented. In the absence of giving Israel some form of assurance October 7 won't be repeated, the condition created is "October 7 will be repeated in the future". Its not that everything pauses until a solution is found. Its not that the tragedy/difficulty of the situation causes god to say "hold on, this is very bad, so I will now make it so that bad things regarding this situation do not happen for the next however long, because people need time to think of a better solution". I'm not sure how to phrase/describe the natural instinct that kicks in for people regarding these situations. But it is essentially a form of paralysis, where people aren't able to conceptualize the only choices are all terrible and its only a matter of deciding which terrible one to choose. It is as if there is a mental process that kicks in that prevents someone from fully internalizing the inevitability of a bad outcome in the absence of prevention. I see a lot of people fall into this with the Gaza situation where every single solution is unacceptable and the natural conclusion ends up being "we should just let October 7 happen again". But it also feels like people are not recognizing this is the result of doing nothing.
October 7 isn't the result of doing nothing, it's the result of a desperate population radicalizing due to continued oppression and abysmal living conditions with no prospects for bettering their future. You seem to be convinced that the problem is that Israel simply hasn't been violent enough, and if they just oppress Palestinians a little harder then the radicalization will just stop. I don't think it's 'mental paralysis' to disagree with such assumption.
|
On November 06 2023 07:23 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2023 06:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 05 2023 19:20 Magic Powers wrote:On November 05 2023 16:57 Cerebrate1 wrote: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. ISIS was and still is not primarily state funded. They couldn't afford to continue fighting a war with the US forever. Hamas' backers are mostly governments; those of Qatar and Iran are the biggest. Furthermore, today by the by Jihadis still exist to roughly the same extent as they existed during prime ISIS days. And how can I leave out the US' biggest failure to date: Afghanistan. The Taliban successfully persevered and the US withdrew. Afghanistan is yet again oppressed. You can't compare Hamas to ISIS, they have completely different network and culture. They're tied to the Gazan people. And where ISIS had to hide from the US, Hamas really doesn't. They fight more or less out in the open because they have the support required for it. The bloodshed of innocent lives that is required to destroy Hamas is unacceptable. I agree with your point about funding from Iran and Qatar making de-radicalization of Gazans significantly more difficult. That would have to be addressed somehow for lasting peace to be achieved. Your point about there being as many Jihadis now as during ISIS actually supports my point about defanging Hamas. That is, compare the number of atrocities committed by ISIS when it had territory to the number committed by a similar number of extremists without territory now. Having a state gives extremists a lot of power to enact their agenda and without it, they are more likely to just plot in caves. I agree that it's worth investigating why Germany and Japan were successfully reformed, and even Iraq post ISIS was relatively successful, while Afghanistan was not. We'd want to identify the factors worth replicating in the former cases while avoiding mistakes of the latter. You want Gaza to be reformed? Like Iran and Afghanistan were reformed? How did that work out?
It must be that my post that you are responding to was unclear somehow, so I will clarify what I said: I listed three countries that were successfully reformed away from radicalism and one that was not. I said we should emulate the successful cases and avoid the problems of the unsuccessful case.
To which, you responded by listing two unsuccessful cases (one of which was literally the one I mentioned).
So great, you've just given us one more example that we can study to avoid the mistakes made there. My premise remains unchanged.
On November 06 2023 07:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i wouldn't really call what was "East Germany" from 1945 to 1990 as a successful reform.
Same answer to you. Let's replicate West Germany or East Germany from 1990 to present and avoid the mistakes of East Germany 1945 to 1990. Although, the truth is, even East Germany 1945 to 1990 was stopped from being Nazis, the Soviets just made them into Soviets, which is really a different issue.
|
On November 06 2023 10:54 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2023 15:37 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 03 2023 16:08 Salazarz wrote:On November 03 2023 13:38 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Still, categorizing your average person who buys a house in a settlement as greedy or evil would be inaccurate. They are just people living their lives. 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. What I'm asking you to consider here is willing participation in an apartheid colonization, not buying a house. Plenty of people in Israel and elsewhere find ways to buy a house without being party to an ethnic cleansing project. Do you think actively participating in apartheid colonization is the same as just buying a house?
You are throwing out an awful lot of misleading buzzwords, some of which have been debunked in this thread already, but I don't have time to deal with all those topics at once, so I'll just address your main point by re-asking the question you conveniently cut out of my post that you are responding to:
Are the Palestinians who build the settlements guilty of participating in all the buzzwords you mentioned too? They literally brought those houses into existence and could have gotten jobs somewhere else instead.
|
The kind of "successful reforms" of nation-states is something that takes decades of intense occupation and intense reorganization of the nation-state by European powers. Nobody is going to be able to do that anymore, The Monetary cost is something that its unpopular to say the least to require the reformed party to take on and the military occupation required becomes unpopular after the first thousand or so rapes by the occupying forces.
Keep in mind we still haven't left Germany South Korea or Japan.
|
On November 07 2023 10:50 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2023 09:10 Magic Powers wrote:On November 07 2023 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:On November 06 2023 07:23 Magic Powers wrote:On November 06 2023 06:32 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 05 2023 19:20 Magic Powers wrote:On November 05 2023 16:57 Cerebrate1 wrote: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. ISIS was and still is not primarily state funded. They couldn't afford to continue fighting a war with the US forever. Hamas' backers are mostly governments; those of Qatar and Iran are the biggest. Furthermore, today by the by Jihadis still exist to roughly the same extent as they existed during prime ISIS days. And how can I leave out the US' biggest failure to date: Afghanistan. The Taliban successfully persevered and the US withdrew. Afghanistan is yet again oppressed. You can't compare Hamas to ISIS, they have completely different network and culture. They're tied to the Gazan people. And where ISIS had to hide from the US, Hamas really doesn't. They fight more or less out in the open because they have the support required for it. The bloodshed of innocent lives that is required to destroy Hamas is unacceptable. I agree with your point about funding from Iran and Qatar making de-radicalization of Gazans significantly more difficult. That would have to be addressed somehow for lasting peace to be achieved. Your point about there being as many Jihadis now as during ISIS actually supports my point about defanging Hamas. That is, compare the number of atrocities committed by ISIS when it had territory to the number committed by a similar number of extremists without territory now. Having a state gives extremists a lot of power to enact their agenda and without it, they are more likely to just plot in caves. I agree that it's worth investigating why Germany and Japan were successfully reformed, and even Iraq post ISIS was relatively successful, while Afghanistan was not. We'd want to identify the factors worth replicating in the former cases while avoiding mistakes of the latter. You want Gaza to be reformed? Like Iran and Afghanistan were reformed? How did that work out? So then what is left? Not able to militarily engage Hamas because of civilian casualties. Not able to reform Gaza. It feels like a lot of folks are experiencing the mental process where it feels like nothing bad happens if a given situation is not responded to. The whole point is that something bad happens if nothing is done, so something needs to be done. So without some sort of action taken to change the Gaza/Hamas situation, it is reasonable to assume October 7 will be repeated. And I am hoping/assuming folks agree that is an unacceptable situation. I feel like the minimum of "what comes next" needs to provide some non-zero reduction in the % chance October 7 is prevented. In the absence of giving Israel some form of assurance October 7 won't be repeated, the condition created is "October 7 will be repeated in the future". Its not that everything pauses until a solution is found. Its not that the tragedy/difficulty of the situation causes god to say "hold on, this is very bad, so I will now make it so that bad things regarding this situation do not happen for the next however long, because people need time to think of a better solution". I'm not sure how to phrase/describe the natural instinct that kicks in for people regarding these situations. But it is essentially a form of paralysis, where people aren't able to conceptualize the only choices are all terrible and its only a matter of deciding which terrible one to choose. It is as if there is a mental process that kicks in that prevents someone from fully internalizing the inevitability of a bad outcome in the absence of prevention. I see a lot of people fall into this with the Gaza situation where every single solution is unacceptable and the natural conclusion ends up being "we should just let October 7 happen again". But it also feels like people are not recognizing this is the result of doing nothing. I don't have a solution and I don't think anyone has one. October 7 will be repeated unless Israel occupies Gaza. Israel has had enough chances to make things right. Their administration chose to make things much worse. If they have a heart, they will understand that they have to take the high road: leave Gaza and enact a ceasefire. Realistically though I don't think the current Israeli government has a heart. At this point I don't understand what they have other than burning hatred. It frustrates me that the US is so soft on them. Hamas attacked first, but that doesn't give them the right to commit atrocities against the civilian population of Gaza. Two wrongs don't make a right. They don't have the right to bombard them or invade them and the world needs to make this as clear to them as possible. That's why I'm praying for a withdrawal of all US military support. What you seem to be preaching is pacifism. Pacifism does not stop bad actors. If the police in your city applied your principle of "two wrongs don't make a right" and didn't arrest suspects to try to imprison murderers, anarchy would ensue and people could murder whomever they pleased since there would be no fear of punishment. This applies on a national level as well. If the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor and the US was like, "well, two wrongs don't make a right, better just call a ceasefire." Imperial Japan would be ruling most of Asia to this day and would be emboldened to kill whomever they want, whenever they want. The Allies actually did try your strategy with Nazi Germany for quite a while. It was called "Appeasement." It allowed the Germans to massively increase their territory before anyone serious finally realized that enough was enough. Because of this hesitance to act, the Nazi's had half of Europe and correspondingly massive industrial output by the time the real war started and were very difficult to stop. As for the cost, the Allies killed over 8 million German civilians in WW2 ( on top of military personnel) and bombed every German city to rubble. That was some 10% of the population of Germany at the time (for comparison, even if we accept Hamas casualty counts as not wildly inflated, we aren't even talking about half a percent of Gazans, and most of those are militants.) Is that terrible? Yes, war always is. That's why starting a war like Hamas did on Oct 7 is so awful. But that doesn't mean Israel should just surrender to the aggressor of this war and appease them.
The conflict between Israel and Gaza didn't start on Oct 7th. Allies didn't kill 8 million civilians in WW2. Most of Gazans killed by Israeli strikes aren't militants. Palestine isn't being 'appeased' by the West, if anything, Israel is, with their settlement expansion and incessant war crimes. And surely, bombing entire neighborhoods because a criminal might be hiding in one of the apartments would make for pretty poor law enforcement policy.
Other than that, though, good post!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
