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 13 2023 04:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: Seeing more and more reports (from doctors without borders) that IDF is shooting civilians trying to evacuate the Al Shifa hospital. The notion that Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties is an absolute farce, we're well into warcrime territory now and even people who fundamentally agree that Israel has the right to try to kill Hamas should still condemn elements of Israel's actions.
I just want to pop in here for a fact check. Hamas is the one sniping civilians evacuating Al Shifa Hospital. Now, I know that until there is video evidence, it's impossible to completely verify which side is doing the sniping and which is lying, but let's just investigate the rationale for a moment:
Israel clearly wants civilians out of the war zone. They've been going out of their way this whole war to phone, drop leaflets, etc to get people to move out. Even now, they have a humanitarian corridor with daily hours of ceasefire that allow civilians to leave, and civilians are still doing so in large numbers. Even if you don't believe that they do all this for ethical reasons, there are clear strategic reasons for doing so. If all civilians left, they could just drop heavy ordinance on the tunnels. There would be a lot less people moving about that they have to wonder who is a threat and who is not. And possibly most importantly, every civilian casualty will be trumpeted from the rooftops by Hamas to create international pressure on Israel. Sniping one or two civilians who are using their humanitarian corridors would push them backwards on all those strategic goals.
Hamas on the other hand wants every civilian to stay as close as possible. They've been telling everyone to stay in the North since the beginning and are urging people not to use the humanitarian corridors. They specifically built their HQ under a hospital so they could use international outrage to prevent Israel from just bombing it from the get go. If all those civilians evacuate, their brilliant human shield tactic won't work anymore. They would have to have a fair soldier to soldier fight against the IDF, and we all know how that would turn out for them. They have every incentive to keep as many civilians right next to them so that it's virtually impossible for Israel to kill them without women and children also dying, that is one of their biggest strategic "assets" at the moment. Shooting a couple people who are "listening to Zionist propaganda" to evacuate makes hundreds reconsider and run back into the war zone. And if you think they wouldn't kill their own, you should know that Hamas killed "Israel sympathizers" on the regular even before this war broke out. And now their rallying cry is that they are "a nation of martyrs," i.e. they will sacrifice as many Palestinians as necessary to achieve their goals.
On November 13 2023 04:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: Seeing more and more reports (from doctors without borders) that IDF is shooting civilians trying to evacuate the Al Shifa hospital. The notion that Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties is an absolute farce, we're well into warcrime territory now and even people who fundamentally agree that Israel has the right to try to kill Hamas should still condemn elements of Israel's actions.
I just want to pop in here for a fact check. Hamas is the one sniping civilians evacuating Al Shifa Hospital. Now, I know that until there is video evidence, it's impossible to completely verify which side is doing the sniping and which is lying, but let's just investigate the rationale for a moment:
Israel clearly wants civilians out of the war zone. They've been going out of their way this whole war to phone, drop leaflets, etc to get people to move out. Even now, they have a humanitarian corridor with daily hours of ceasefire that allow civilians to leave, and civilians are still doing so in large numbers. Even if you don't believe that they do all this for ethical reasons, there are clear strategic reasons for doing so. If all civilians left, they could just drop heavy ordinance on the tunnels. There would be a lot less people moving about that they have to wonder who is a threat and who is not. And possibly most importantly, every civilian casualty will be trumpeted from the rooftops by Hamas to create international pressure on Israel. Sniping one or two civilians who are using their humanitarian corridors would push them backwards on all those strategic goals.
Hamas on the other hand wants every civilian to stay as close as possible. They've been telling everyone to stay in the North since the beginning and are urging people not to use the humanitarian corridors. They specifically built their HQ under a hospital so they could use international outrage to prevent Israel from just bombing it from the get go. If all those civilians evacuate, their brilliant human shield tactic won't work anymore. They would have to have a fair soldier to soldier fight against the IDF, and we all know how that would turn out for them. They have every incentive to keep as many civilians right next to them so that it's virtually impossible for Israel to kill them without women and children also dying, that is one of their biggest strategic "assets" at the moment. Shooting a couple people who are "listening to Zionist propaganda" to evacuate makes hundreds reconsider and run back into the war zone. And if you think they wouldn't kill their own, you should know that Hamas killed "Israel sympathizers" on the regular even before this war broke out. And now their rallying cry is that they are "a nation of martyrs," i.e. they will sacrifice as many Palestinians as necessary to achieve their goals.
What I'm taking away from this argument is that, if a killer takes people hostage, well tough luck for the hostages. Shoot them dead if there's a chance that the bullet hits the killer. Just tell them to move out of the line of fire, it's fine. Even though demonstrably they're still in the line of fire. That's on them then, why don't they just move.
On November 13 2023 04:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: Seeing more and more reports (from doctors without borders) that IDF is shooting civilians trying to evacuate the Al Shifa hospital. The notion that Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties is an absolute farce, we're well into warcrime territory now and even people who fundamentally agree that Israel has the right to try to kill Hamas should still condemn elements of Israel's actions.
I just want to pop in here for a fact check. Hamas is the one sniping civilians evacuating Al Shifa Hospital. Now, I know that until there is video evidence, it's impossible to completely verify which side is doing the sniping and which is lying, but let's just investigate the rationale for a moment:
Israel clearly wants civilians out of the war zone. They've been going out of their way this whole war to phone, drop leaflets, etc to get people to move out. Even now, they have a humanitarian corridor with daily hours of ceasefire that allow civilians to leave, and civilians are still doing so in large numbers. Even if you don't believe that they do all this for ethical reasons, there are clear strategic reasons for doing so. If all civilians left, they could just drop heavy ordinance on the tunnels. There would be a lot less people moving about that they have to wonder who is a threat and who is not. And possibly most importantly, every civilian casualty will be trumpeted from the rooftops by Hamas to create international pressure on Israel. Sniping one or two civilians who are using their humanitarian corridors would push them backwards on all those strategic goals.
Hamas on the other hand wants every civilian to stay as close as possible. They've been telling everyone to stay in the North since the beginning and are urging people not to use the humanitarian corridors. They specifically built their HQ under a hospital so they could use international outrage to prevent Israel from just bombing it from the get go. If all those civilians evacuate, their brilliant human shield tactic won't work anymore. They would have to have a fair soldier to soldier fight against the IDF, and we all know how that would turn out for them. They have every incentive to keep as many civilians right next to them so that it's virtually impossible for Israel to kill them without women and children also dying, that is one of their biggest strategic "assets" at the moment. Shooting a couple people who are "listening to Zionist propaganda" to evacuate makes hundreds reconsider and run back into the war zone. And if you think they wouldn't kill their own, you should know that Hamas killed "Israel sympathizers" on the regular even before this war broke out. And now their rallying cry is that they are "a nation of martyrs," i.e. they will sacrifice as many Palestinians as necessary to achieve their goals.
What I'm taking away from this argument is that, if a killer takes people hostage, well tough luck for the hostages. Shoot them dead if there's a chance that the bullet hits the killer. Just tell them to move out of the line of fire, it's fine. Even though demonstrably they're still in the line of fire. That's on them then, why don't they just move.
I was actually just correcting the information of who was shooting evacuating civilians. That is, Hamas is because it furthers their strategic goals and hinders Israel to have more civilians afraid to leave the war zone. It's actually pretty clear from my post (and Israel's actions) that Israel would prefer if there were zero civilians between them and Hamas.
I did not attempt to address your question of "is it morally acceptable to kill bad guys even if there are collateral casualties?" I thought that my quoting Drone made it clear that I was responding to his point, but I can respond to yours in the future as well if I have time.
On November 13 2023 04:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: Seeing more and more reports (from doctors without borders) that IDF is shooting civilians trying to evacuate the Al Shifa hospital. The notion that Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties is an absolute farce, we're well into warcrime territory now and even people who fundamentally agree that Israel has the right to try to kill Hamas should still condemn elements of Israel's actions.
Mohdoo, what's your response to 'The U.S. intelligence community has growing confidence that reports on the death toll from health authorities in Hamas-controlled Gaza are roughly accurate, U.S. officials said.' from the previous page?
Can you give me a source that says Israel is attacking? The ones I've read don't specifically name someone because it's hard to know who is doing what.
I'll respond to your post in our previous interaction later when I have more time MP.
On November 13 2023 04:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: Seeing more and more reports (from doctors without borders) that IDF is shooting civilians trying to evacuate the Al Shifa hospital. The notion that Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties is an absolute farce, we're well into warcrime territory now and even people who fundamentally agree that Israel has the right to try to kill Hamas should still condemn elements of Israel's actions.
I just want to pop in here for a fact check. Hamas is the one sniping civilians evacuating Al Shifa Hospital. Now, I know that until there is video evidence, it's impossible to completely verify which side is doing the sniping and which is lying, but let's just investigate the rationale for a moment:
Israel clearly wants civilians out of the war zone. They've been going out of their way this whole war to phone, drop leaflets, etc to get people to move out. Even now, they have a humanitarian corridor with daily hours of ceasefire that allow civilians to leave, and civilians are still doing so in large numbers. Even if you don't believe that they do all this for ethical reasons, there are clear strategic reasons for doing so. If all civilians left, they could just drop heavy ordinance on the tunnels. There would be a lot less people moving about that they have to wonder who is a threat and who is not. And possibly most importantly, every civilian casualty will be trumpeted from the rooftops by Hamas to create international pressure on Israel. Sniping one or two civilians who are using their humanitarian corridors would push them backwards on all those strategic goals.
Hamas on the other hand wants every civilian to stay as close as possible. They've been telling everyone to stay in the North since the beginning and are urging people not to use the humanitarian corridors. They specifically built their HQ under a hospital so they could use international outrage to prevent Israel from just bombing it from the get go. If all those civilians evacuate, their brilliant human shield tactic won't work anymore. They would have to have a fair soldier to soldier fight against the IDF, and we all know how that would turn out for them. They have every incentive to keep as many civilians right next to them so that it's virtually impossible for Israel to kill them without women and children also dying, that is one of their biggest strategic "assets" at the moment. Shooting a couple people who are "listening to Zionist propaganda" to evacuate makes hundreds reconsider and run back into the war zone. And if you think they wouldn't kill their own, you should know that Hamas killed "Israel sympathizers" on the regular even before this war broke out. And now their rallying cry is that they are "a nation of martyrs," i.e. they will sacrifice as many Palestinians as necessary to achieve their goals.
On November 13 2023 04:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: Seeing more and more reports (from doctors without borders) that IDF is shooting civilians trying to evacuate the Al Shifa hospital. The notion that Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties is an absolute farce, we're well into warcrime territory now and even people who fundamentally agree that Israel has the right to try to kill Hamas should still condemn elements of Israel's actions.
I just want to pop in here for a fact check. Hamas is the one sniping civilians evacuating Al Shifa Hospital. Now, I know that until there is video evidence, it's impossible to completely verify which side is doing the sniping and which is lying, but let's just investigate the rationale for a moment:
Israel clearly wants civilians out of the war zone. They've been going out of their way this whole war to phone, drop leaflets, etc to get people to move out. Even now, they have a humanitarian corridor with daily hours of ceasefire that allow civilians to leave, and civilians are still doing so in large numbers. Even if you don't believe that they do all this for ethical reasons, there are clear strategic reasons for doing so. If all civilians left, they could just drop heavy ordinance on the tunnels. There would be a lot less people moving about that they have to wonder who is a threat and who is not. And possibly most importantly, every civilian casualty will be trumpeted from the rooftops by Hamas to create international pressure on Israel. Sniping one or two civilians who are using their humanitarian corridors would push them backwards on all those strategic goals.
Hamas on the other hand wants every civilian to stay as close as possible. They've been telling everyone to stay in the North since the beginning and are urging people not to use the humanitarian corridors. They specifically built their HQ under a hospital so they could use international outrage to prevent Israel from just bombing it from the get go. If all those civilians evacuate, their brilliant human shield tactic won't work anymore. They would have to have a fair soldier to soldier fight against the IDF, and we all know how that would turn out for them. They have every incentive to keep as many civilians right next to them so that it's virtually impossible for Israel to kill them without women and children also dying, that is one of their biggest strategic "assets" at the moment. Shooting a couple people who are "listening to Zionist propaganda" to evacuate makes hundreds reconsider and run back into the war zone. And if you think they wouldn't kill their own, you should know that Hamas killed "Israel sympathizers" on the regular even before this war broke out. And now their rallying cry is that they are "a nation of martyrs," i.e. they will sacrifice as many Palestinians as necessary to achieve their goals.
My point is, if it was Israel, they were shooting themselves in the foot for no reason. Like, it was an Israeli operation to get civilians out of the hospital. There are recordings of them talking to the staff on how to do it. They created a perimeter and announced a safe time to leave. To do all that work and then shoot a few civilians (the obvious result of which was hundreds of civilians who were evacuating to flee back to the hospital) just doesn't make any sense.
However, if you want hundreds of human shields to stick around (Hamas), then shooting some people to ruin the Israeli evac operation makes a lot of sense.
On November 13 2023 10:19 KwarK wrote: Regular Palestinian civilians also have very valid motivations not to leave their homes when ordered to by the IDF.
Sure. But what happened here was people who did very clearly want to evacuate (a large group was leaving the hospital waving white flags during the humanitarian pause designed for evacuation) and someone shot people to dissuade them from leaving. Even the people who claim Israel is trying to do an ethnic cleansing action would agree that Israel wants people to leave the area. Only Hamas is actively encouraging them to stay.
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 11 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote:
On November 10 2023 23:39 Magic Powers wrote: I wouldn't be able to point out a single person in this thread who'd fit the description of a Hamas apologist.
Then you are extremely generous with your outlook. When someone starts claiming their genocidal ideology, talk, actions are not. Asks if they are justified. Starts to beat around the bush about the IDF doing the Hamas killing in spite of them taking credit, all the evidence including the self shot body cam and cell cam videos. When people are making claims about how the “west” treats Palestine without seemingly any realization that none of the Muslim or “Eastern” countries recognized Palestine before.
I’m not sure if it is that people are not in tune to the left dog whistle’s the way they are to the right, maybe because they can not believe someone that shares their values in many ways can differ so hard on other things. But for me there is posters here who dog whistle’s have crossed into such blatant territory that it is impossible to ignore.
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
Luckily Labour got purged of their anti-Semitic elements so they can unequivocally support Israel now, that’s much better eh?
I don't care who the Labour party supports. I gave an example of an organisation that had problems with anti semitism.
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 11 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote:
On November 10 2023 23:39 Magic Powers wrote: I wouldn't be able to point out a single person in this thread who'd fit the description of a Hamas apologist.
Then you are extremely generous with your outlook. When someone starts claiming their genocidal ideology, talk, actions are not. Asks if they are justified. Starts to beat around the bush about the IDF doing the Hamas killing in spite of them taking credit, all the evidence including the self shot body cam and cell cam videos. When people are making claims about how the “west” treats Palestine without seemingly any realization that none of the Muslim or “Eastern” countries recognized Palestine before.
I’m not sure if it is that people are not in tune to the left dog whistle’s the way they are to the right, maybe because they can not believe someone that shares their values in many ways can differ so hard on other things. But for me there is posters here who dog whistle’s have crossed into such blatant territory that it is impossible to ignore.
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
This bombardment of Gaza is an atrocity. Call it what you want, war crime or not, it hardly makes a difference. I don't see how such a disproportionate level of aggression can be justified. And that's on top of Israel having a history of oppression.
I'd like people to imagine a hypothetical. Imagine Germany doing something of this nature. Oppression of an ethnic group through Apartheid, displacement, imprisonment and starvation. What would the world say? We all know what the headlines would say.
Regarding your examples of dog whistling, I can only agree with the first one. That can be an indicator. Point two and three don't qualify as dog whistling.
It makes a difference. You can't see how it can be justified because you don't engage with the arguments put forth by the opposing side.
People do care because the perception exists that a Labour that is not anti-Semitic is, coincidentally much more overtly pro-Israel. It’s that age-old conflation of the two.
Although from what I saw of various (mostly low level local councillors) who were expelled from the party had done things I’d absolutely consider anti-Semitic. Unlike some I don’t consider it a meritless witch hunt by any means.
When put side by side with an actual ruling party whose Home Secretary especially routinely racially dog whistles, it’s a tad odd but on principle I can’t really object to getting rid of people with genuinely discriminatory views.
I don't see how you can deal with anti semitism and not become more pro Israel. Anti Israel is not necessarily anti semetic but I don't see how you can be anti semetic and pro Israel. When you remove anti Israel voices from an institution the institution will become more pro Israel. Fwiw I'm not a fan of conservatives stance on immigration and how their criticism of it often devolves into hatred and racism.
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 11 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote:
On November 10 2023 23:39 Magic Powers wrote: I wouldn't be able to point out a single person in this thread who'd fit the description of a Hamas apologist.
Then you are extremely generous with your outlook. When someone starts claiming their genocidal ideology, talk, actions are not. Asks if they are justified. Starts to beat around the bush about the IDF doing the Hamas killing in spite of them taking credit, all the evidence including the self shot body cam and cell cam videos. When people are making claims about how the “west” treats Palestine without seemingly any realization that none of the Muslim or “Eastern” countries recognized Palestine before.
I’m not sure if it is that people are not in tune to the left dog whistle’s the way they are to the right, maybe because they can not believe someone that shares their values in many ways can differ so hard on other things. But for me there is posters here who dog whistle’s have crossed into such blatant territory that it is impossible to ignore.
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
Luckily Labour got purged of their anti-Semitic elements so they can unequivocally support Israel now, that’s much better eh?
I don't care who the Labour party supports. I gave an example of an organisation that had problems with anti semitism.
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 11 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote:
On November 10 2023 23:39 Magic Powers wrote: I wouldn't be able to point out a single person in this thread who'd fit the description of a Hamas apologist.
Then you are extremely generous with your outlook. When someone starts claiming their genocidal ideology, talk, actions are not. Asks if they are justified. Starts to beat around the bush about the IDF doing the Hamas killing in spite of them taking credit, all the evidence including the self shot body cam and cell cam videos. When people are making claims about how the “west” treats Palestine without seemingly any realization that none of the Muslim or “Eastern” countries recognized Palestine before.
I’m not sure if it is that people are not in tune to the left dog whistle’s the way they are to the right, maybe because they can not believe someone that shares their values in many ways can differ so hard on other things. But for me there is posters here who dog whistle’s have crossed into such blatant territory that it is impossible to ignore.
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
This bombardment of Gaza is an atrocity. Call it what you want, war crime or not, it hardly makes a difference. I don't see how such a disproportionate level of aggression can be justified. And that's on top of Israel having a history of oppression.
I'd like people to imagine a hypothetical. Imagine Germany doing something of this nature. Oppression of an ethnic group through Apartheid, displacement, imprisonment and starvation. What would the world say? We all know what the headlines would say.
Regarding your examples of dog whistling, I can only agree with the first one. That can be an indicator. Point two and three don't qualify as dog whistling.
It makes a difference. You can't see how it can be justified because you don't engage with the arguments put forth by the opposing side.
Which argument that justifies the bombardment has not yet been refuted? We've been discussing this for many pages and I can't remember anyone being able to explain why so many civilian deaths are required or acceptable. No one has been able to explain why Israel can't leave it at having stabilized and secured its borders after October 7. Far from it, we've only seen mounting evidence that the counter measures are over the top, that they're only going to lead to further oppression of Palestinians, and that the total lives saved vs lives lost of innocent people speaks heavily against the bombardment.
Please, do engage with these points, I'll gladly continue the discussion.
My previous post wasn't very productive so my bad for that.
Let's go through the hypothetical where Israel does not respond militarily with an invasion into Gaza. In the short term there's no question it would lead to less casualties. Civilian or otherwise. In the long term it will lead to more casualties instead. If we look at it from the perspective of Hamas their expectations were probably as follows: 1. attack 2. kill Israeli's and take hostages 3. celebrate the great victory 4. wait for and endure the military response. Eventually the calls for a ceasefire will become overwhelming and Israel stops fighting, leaving Hamas in control of Gaza 5. exchange the hostages for a release of Hamas prisoners. These prisoners can help for the next attack as we've seen with the last exchange 6. prepare for the next attack on Israel
In that military response many Palestinian civilians and low level Hamas militants will die but the leadership and what they consider important things are relatively safe in their tunnel network below hospitals. For Hamas the Palestinian casualties are martyrs. It doesn't matter if thousands die as long as the leadership survives and continues to be in charge of the Gaza Strip they can fight for another day. Now what do you think happens if there is no military response? Do you think Hamas will see the error of its ways and stop their violence? Of course not. Instead the opposite will happen. The operation went much better than expected. Israel wants the hostages back so the exchange still happens. It shows Hamas and Palestinians that their violent attack works. It shows that Israel is becoming weak and does not want to defend itself anymore. It increases their legitimacy while at the same time destroying any legitimacy the PA had left with their policy of engagement with Israel. As Cerebrale pointed out capability is not static. Reinforcing the border helps temporarily but eventually they'll find a way around it. Because you've not even damaged their capabilities, this moment will come sooner rather than later.
Doing nothing will lead to more support for Hamas, it will lead to more attacks on Israel from Hamas and other organizations, and eventually a military response from Israel becomes inevitable leaving us at the same point we're now. At that point Hamas is even more entrenched making it much more difficult to remove them and causing even more deaths not to mention all the Israeli deaths in the meantime. Additionally they'll have oppressed civilians in Gaza for many more years.
Coming back to the argument of proportionality the reason why I said you're not engaging with the arguments of the opposing side is a post like the following:
On November 08 2023 23:34 Magic Powers wrote: I'd also like to address the claims by some people of Hamas exaggerating the death count: Hamas fighters only make up a small portion of Gazan people. There's no chance that the numbers can be exaggerated to such a degree that the conclusion changes. Lets assume 1/4 or even 1/2 of the reported civilian deaths are actually Hamas fighters - that would change nothing. Reported deaths are 1400 for Israel (no longer increasing) and 10 000 for Gaza (rapidly increasing).
The brutality of the IDF is disproportional no matter how we slice it. So even if we have a stone-cold argument of utility over an emotional one of the morality of killing, it's clear that the level of death and destruction is too much regardless of false reports.
You cannot determine the proportionality of the Israeli response from the numbers provided by the Hamas health ministry for the following reasons:
- A proportional response to the attack from Hamas means the following. I've quoted The Economist before on this so I'll do so again:
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.
Drawing that line is a subjective and contentious process. But Israel’s campaign so far would meet those criteria, argues Aurel Sari, a law professor at the University of Exeter who lectures to NATO armed forces. The scale of Hamas’s attack, its demonstrated intent and proven capability means that invading Gaza or even occupying it temporarily to destroy the group “will be relatively easy to justify” legally, he says.
Notice how it does not require symmetry of civilian casualties between the two sides. The reason for this is because if you do compare civilian casualties like that there's an incentive to use civilians as human shields and a disincentive to protect civilians. For individual strikes it is different. There it has to be proportional to the military advantage gained. But this has to be judged on a case by case basis. - The numbers don't distinguish between militants and civilians - The numbers don't record the cause of death. It could be caused by someone falling from the stairs for all we know - The numbers don't distinguish between deaths caused by Israel or by militants in Gaza - The numbers do not take Hamas' use of human shields into account - The numbers do not take Hamas' use of child soldiers into account - The numbers do not take into account the military value of what was destroyed in the strikes
To summarize even if the amount of deaths is correct you cannot use them to conclude whether Israel's response is (dis)proportional. Your post only really takes the second point into account.
Far from it, we've only seen mounting evidence that the counter measures are over the top, that they're only going to lead to further oppression of Palestinians, and that the total lives saved vs lives lost of innocent people speaks heavily against the bombardment.
What evidence is there that it will lead to more oppression? That depends in large part on what comes next and what we've heard about that is very little and vague. One of the issues is that Netanyahu and his right wing coalition have lost their legitimacy due to 7/10 and are almost certainly going to lose power after the war.
Then one last point I want to make. For Israel 7/10 is an existential threat. Their neighbours stopped invading because they lost militarily multiple times. Their security is based on the fact that the IDF and security agencies are considered world class. A mistake of this size massively dents that reputation. The military response is in part aimed at rebuilding deterrence to prevent other parties from becoming too aggressive. You can argue that what they've already done is enough for that but I think the IDF and Israels politicians disagree. Considering the nature of conflicts in the middle east I understand why.
On November 13 2023 04:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: Seeing more and more reports (from doctors without borders) that IDF is shooting civilians trying to evacuate the Al Shifa hospital. The notion that Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties is an absolute farce, we're well into warcrime territory now and even people who fundamentally agree that Israel has the right to try to kill Hamas should still condemn elements of Israel's actions.
I just want to pop in here for a fact check. Hamas is the one sniping civilians evacuating Al Shifa Hospital. Now, I know that until there is video evidence, it's impossible to completely verify which side is doing the sniping and which is lying, but let's just investigate the rationale for a moment:
Israel clearly wants civilians out of the war zone. They've been going out of their way this whole war to phone, drop leaflets, etc to get people to move out. Even now, they have a humanitarian corridor with daily hours of ceasefire that allow civilians to leave, and civilians are still doing so in large numbers. Even if you don't believe that they do all this for ethical reasons, there are clear strategic reasons for doing so. If all civilians left, they could just drop heavy ordinance on the tunnels. There would be a lot less people moving about that they have to wonder who is a threat and who is not. And possibly most importantly, every civilian casualty will be trumpeted from the rooftops by Hamas to create international pressure on Israel. Sniping one or two civilians who are using their humanitarian corridors would push them backwards on all those strategic goals.
Hamas on the other hand wants every civilian to stay as close as possible. They've been telling everyone to stay in the North since the beginning and are urging people not to use the humanitarian corridors. They specifically built their HQ under a hospital so they could use international outrage to prevent Israel from just bombing it from the get go. If all those civilians evacuate, their brilliant human shield tactic won't work anymore. They would have to have a fair soldier to soldier fight against the IDF, and we all know how that would turn out for them. They have every incentive to keep as many civilians right next to them so that it's virtually impossible for Israel to kill them without women and children also dying, that is one of their biggest strategic "assets" at the moment. Shooting a couple people who are "listening to Zionist propaganda" to evacuate makes hundreds reconsider and run back into the war zone. And if you think they wouldn't kill their own, you should know that Hamas killed "Israel sympathizers" on the regular even before this war broke out. And now their rallying cry is that they are "a nation of martyrs," i.e. they will sacrifice as many Palestinians as necessary to achieve their goals.
What I'm taking away from this argument is that, if a killer takes people hostage, well tough luck for the hostages. Shoot them dead if there's a chance that the bullet hits the killer. Just tell them to move out of the line of fire, it's fine. Even though demonstrably they're still in the line of fire. That's on them then, why don't they just move.
I was actually just correcting the information of who was shooting evacuating civilians. That is, Hamas is because it furthers their strategic goals and hinders Israel to have more civilians afraid to leave the war zone. It's actually pretty clear from my post (and Israel's actions) that Israel would prefer if there were zero civilians between them and Hamas.
I did not attempt to address your question of "is it morally acceptable to kill bad guys even if there are collateral casualties?" I thought that my quoting Drone made it clear that I was responding to his point, but I can respond to yours in the future as well if I have time.
I don't care, it makes no difference to me. We already know that Hamas are the bad guys and that they're worse than Israel. I don't see a reason for having that discussion because it's about as obvious as the sky being blue. The debate has shifted to a justification of Israel's actions. Their actions can't be justified with "but Hamas are the bad guys". Two wrongs don't make a right.
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 11 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote:
On November 10 2023 23:39 Magic Powers wrote: I wouldn't be able to point out a single person in this thread who'd fit the description of a Hamas apologist.
Then you are extremely generous with your outlook. When someone starts claiming their genocidal ideology, talk, actions are not. Asks if they are justified. Starts to beat around the bush about the IDF doing the Hamas killing in spite of them taking credit, all the evidence including the self shot body cam and cell cam videos. When people are making claims about how the “west” treats Palestine without seemingly any realization that none of the Muslim or “Eastern” countries recognized Palestine before.
I’m not sure if it is that people are not in tune to the left dog whistle’s the way they are to the right, maybe because they can not believe someone that shares their values in many ways can differ so hard on other things. But for me there is posters here who dog whistle’s have crossed into such blatant territory that it is impossible to ignore.
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
Luckily Labour got purged of their anti-Semitic elements so they can unequivocally support Israel now, that’s much better eh?
I don't care who the Labour party supports. I gave an example of an organisation that had problems with anti semitism.
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 11 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote:
On November 10 2023 23:39 Magic Powers wrote: I wouldn't be able to point out a single person in this thread who'd fit the description of a Hamas apologist.
Then you are extremely generous with your outlook. When someone starts claiming their genocidal ideology, talk, actions are not. Asks if they are justified. Starts to beat around the bush about the IDF doing the Hamas killing in spite of them taking credit, all the evidence including the self shot body cam and cell cam videos. When people are making claims about how the “west” treats Palestine without seemingly any realization that none of the Muslim or “Eastern” countries recognized Palestine before.
I’m not sure if it is that people are not in tune to the left dog whistle’s the way they are to the right, maybe because they can not believe someone that shares their values in many ways can differ so hard on other things. But for me there is posters here who dog whistle’s have crossed into such blatant territory that it is impossible to ignore.
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
This bombardment of Gaza is an atrocity. Call it what you want, war crime or not, it hardly makes a difference. I don't see how such a disproportionate level of aggression can be justified. And that's on top of Israel having a history of oppression.
I'd like people to imagine a hypothetical. Imagine Germany doing something of this nature. Oppression of an ethnic group through Apartheid, displacement, imprisonment and starvation. What would the world say? We all know what the headlines would say.
Regarding your examples of dog whistling, I can only agree with the first one. That can be an indicator. Point two and three don't qualify as dog whistling.
It makes a difference. You can't see how it can be justified because you don't engage with the arguments put forth by the opposing side.
People do care because the perception exists that a Labour that is not anti-Semitic is, coincidentally much more overtly pro-Israel. It’s that age-old conflation of the two.
Although from what I saw of various (mostly low level local councillors) who were expelled from the party had done things I’d absolutely consider anti-Semitic. Unlike some I don’t consider it a meritless witch hunt by any means.
When put side by side with an actual ruling party whose Home Secretary especially routinely racially dog whistles, it’s a tad odd but on principle I can’t really object to getting rid of people with genuinely discriminatory views.
I don't see how you can deal with anti semitism and not become more pro Israel. Anti Israel is not necessarily anti semetic but I don't see how you can be anti semetic and pro Israel. When you remove anti Israel voices from an institution the institution will become more pro Israel. Fwiw I'm not a fan of conservatives stance on immigration and how their criticism of it often devolves into hatred and racism.
Tbh my impression is that most non-muslim anti-semites are actually more anti-muslim than they are anti-semitic, even if they are both.
But honestly I think the non-muslim anti-semitic group is hardly a factor, and that it's virtually non-existent among more traditional pro-palestine leftists. The actual nazis who hate jews for being jews are few in number.
Cerebrate: I've based myself on reports from doctors without borders, a group I consider most trustworthy, but I can see how the fog of war makes it possible that they're in the wrong. But I'm going with 'possible', not 'conclusive'.
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 11 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote:
On November 10 2023 23:39 Magic Powers wrote: I wouldn't be able to point out a single person in this thread who'd fit the description of a Hamas apologist.
Then you are extremely generous with your outlook. When someone starts claiming their genocidal ideology, talk, actions are not. Asks if they are justified. Starts to beat around the bush about the IDF doing the Hamas killing in spite of them taking credit, all the evidence including the self shot body cam and cell cam videos. When people are making claims about how the “west” treats Palestine without seemingly any realization that none of the Muslim or “Eastern” countries recognized Palestine before.
I’m not sure if it is that people are not in tune to the left dog whistle’s the way they are to the right, maybe because they can not believe someone that shares their values in many ways can differ so hard on other things. But for me there is posters here who dog whistle’s have crossed into such blatant territory that it is impossible to ignore.
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
Luckily Labour got purged of their anti-Semitic elements so they can unequivocally support Israel now, that’s much better eh?
I don't care who the Labour party supports. I gave an example of an organisation that had problems with anti semitism.
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 11 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote:
On November 10 2023 23:39 Magic Powers wrote: I wouldn't be able to point out a single person in this thread who'd fit the description of a Hamas apologist.
Then you are extremely generous with your outlook. When someone starts claiming their genocidal ideology, talk, actions are not. Asks if they are justified. Starts to beat around the bush about the IDF doing the Hamas killing in spite of them taking credit, all the evidence including the self shot body cam and cell cam videos. When people are making claims about how the “west” treats Palestine without seemingly any realization that none of the Muslim or “Eastern” countries recognized Palestine before.
I’m not sure if it is that people are not in tune to the left dog whistle’s the way they are to the right, maybe because they can not believe someone that shares their values in many ways can differ so hard on other things. But for me there is posters here who dog whistle’s have crossed into such blatant territory that it is impossible to ignore.
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
This bombardment of Gaza is an atrocity. Call it what you want, war crime or not, it hardly makes a difference. I don't see how such a disproportionate level of aggression can be justified. And that's on top of Israel having a history of oppression.
I'd like people to imagine a hypothetical. Imagine Germany doing something of this nature. Oppression of an ethnic group through Apartheid, displacement, imprisonment and starvation. What would the world say? We all know what the headlines would say.
Regarding your examples of dog whistling, I can only agree with the first one. That can be an indicator. Point two and three don't qualify as dog whistling.
It makes a difference. You can't see how it can be justified because you don't engage with the arguments put forth by the opposing side.
Which argument that justifies the bombardment has not yet been refuted? We've been discussing this for many pages and I can't remember anyone being able to explain why so many civilian deaths are required or acceptable. No one has been able to explain why Israel can't leave it at having stabilized and secured its borders after October 7. Far from it, we've only seen mounting evidence that the counter measures are over the top, that they're only going to lead to further oppression of Palestinians, and that the total lives saved vs lives lost of innocent people speaks heavily against the bombardment.
Please, do engage with these points, I'll gladly continue the discussion.
My previous post wasn't very productive so my bad for that.
Let's go through the hypothetical where Israel does not respond militarily with an invasion into Gaza. In the short term there's no question it would lead to less casualties. Civilian or otherwise. In the long term it will lead to more casualties instead. If we look at it from the perspective of Hamas their expectations were probably as follows: 1. attack 2. kill Israeli's and take hostages 3. celebrate the great victory 4. wait for and endure the military response. Eventually the calls for a ceasefire will become overwhelming and Israel stops fighting, leaving Hamas in control of Gaza 5. exchange the hostages for a release of Hamas prisoners. These prisoners can help for the next attack as we've seen with the last exchange 6. prepare for the next attack on Israel
In that military response many Palestinian civilians and low level Hamas militants will die but the leadership and what they consider important things are relatively safe in their tunnel network below hospitals. For Hamas the Palestinian casualties are martyrs. It doesn't matter if thousands die as long as the leadership survives and continues to be in charge of the Gaza Strip they can fight for another day. Now what do you think happens if there is no military response? Do you think Hamas will see the error of its ways and stop their violence? Of course not. Instead the opposite will happen. The operation went much better than expected. Israel wants the hostages back so the exchange still happens. It shows Hamas and Palestinians that their violent attack works. It shows that Israel is becoming weak and does not want to defend itself anymore. It increases their legitimacy while at the same time destroying any legitimacy the PA had left with their policy of engagement with Israel. As Cerebrale pointed out capability is not static. Reinforcing the border helps temporarily but eventually they'll find a way around it. Because you've not even damaged their capabilities, this moment will come sooner rather than later.
Doing nothing will lead to more support for Hamas, it will lead to more attacks on Israel from Hamas and other organizations, and eventually a military response from Israel becomes inevitable leaving us at the same point we're now. At that point Hamas is even more entrenched making it much more difficult to remove them and causing even more deaths not to mention all the Israeli deaths in the meantime. Additionally they'll have oppressed civilians in Gaza for many more years.
Coming back to the argument of proportionality the reason why I said you're not engaging with the arguments of the opposing side is a post like the following:
On November 08 2023 23:34 Magic Powers wrote: I'd also like to address the claims by some people of Hamas exaggerating the death count: Hamas fighters only make up a small portion of Gazan people. There's no chance that the numbers can be exaggerated to such a degree that the conclusion changes. Lets assume 1/4 or even 1/2 of the reported civilian deaths are actually Hamas fighters - that would change nothing. Reported deaths are 1400 for Israel (no longer increasing) and 10 000 for Gaza (rapidly increasing).
The brutality of the IDF is disproportional no matter how we slice it. So even if we have a stone-cold argument of utility over an emotional one of the morality of killing, it's clear that the level of death and destruction is too much regardless of false reports.
You cannot determine the proportionality of the Israeli response from the numbers provided by the Hamas health ministry for the following reasons:
- A proportional response to the attack from Hamas means the following. I've quoted The Economist before on this so I'll do so again:
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.
Drawing that line is a subjective and contentious process. But Israel’s campaign so far would meet those criteria, argues Aurel Sari, a law professor at the University of Exeter who lectures to NATO armed forces. The scale of Hamas’s attack, its demonstrated intent and proven capability means that invading Gaza or even occupying it temporarily to destroy the group “will be relatively easy to justify” legally, he says.
Notice how it does not require symmetry of civilian casualties between the two sides. The reason for this is because if you do compare civilian casualties like that there's an incentive to use civilians as human shields and a disincentive to protect civilians. For individual strikes it is different. There it has to be proportional to the military advantage gained. But this has to be judged on a case by case basis. - The numbers don't distinguish between militants and civilians - The numbers don't record the cause of death. It could be caused by someone falling from the stairs for all we know - The numbers don't distinguish between deaths caused by Israel or by militants in Gaza - The numbers do not take Hamas' use of human shields into account - The numbers do not take Hamas' use of child soldiers into account - The numbers do not take into account the military value of what was destroyed in the strikes
To summarize even if the amount of deaths is correct you cannot use them to conclude whether Israel's response is (dis)proportional. Your post only really takes the second point into account.
Far from it, we've only seen mounting evidence that the counter measures are over the top, that they're only going to lead to further oppression of Palestinians, and that the total lives saved vs lives lost of innocent people speaks heavily against the bombardment.
What evidence is there that it will lead to more oppression? That depends in large part on what comes next and what we've heard about that is very little and vague. One of the issues is that Netanyahu and his right wing coalition have lost their legitimacy due to 7/10 and are almost certainly going to lose power after the war.
Then one last point I want to make. For Israel 7/10 is an existential threat. Their neighbours stopped invading because they lost militarily multiple times. Their security is based on the fact that the IDF and security agencies are considered world class. A mistake of this size massively dents that reputation. The military response is in part aimed at rebuilding deterrence to prevent other parties from becoming too aggressive. You can argue that what they've already done is enough for that but I think the IDF and Israels politicians disagree. Considering the nature of conflicts in the middle east I understand why.
The IDF was caught with its pants down when Hamas invaded. The Israeli administration was warned but they ignored the warnings. Their intel also failed. They also naively assumed that Hamas was moving away from terrorism (for reasons unbeknownst to me) and pursuing economic goals. They also ignored Hamas’ military exercises, including parachute landings. Hamas didn't just suddenly "grow too powerful". It was a preventable failure by Israel. You can't blame the cars for collapsing a bridge if you don't maintain the bridge and keep it up to standard. Hamas will keep attacking Israel, and Israel didn't take appropriate measures. They lowered their guard for no good reason.
And yet even this colossal failure has resulted in no more than 1400 deaths on Israel’s side. They can quite clearly be much better defended than this if they want to. The claim that Israel will suffer another 1400 deaths during another future attack is absurd. Yes, they'll lose lives, just as they have over previous decades, but it won't be anything close to 1400. Israel is once again very afraid of Hamas, so they will never let that happen again. It's in their own hands. Hamas has little say in that.
Israel's willingness to kill and destroy can instead be turned into a willingness to protect. There’s a very specific reason why they’re not doing it: the Netanjahu administration. There’s no other reason. A benevolent administration strictly wouldn’t be doing this, as they would understand that it wouldn’t be right, and it's not even clear that it's productive either. The claim that Israel can only protect its citizens by causing this much death and destruction and more is completely unfounded. Israel has the means to strengthen its borders and improve its intel. There is no excuse.
As to part two of your argument regarding proportionality: Israel has already stabilized the border situation. "It means that the defending state can use as much force as is needed to address the threat—and no more." Israel has accomplished that goal weeks ago. Therefore I reject the argument from The Economist. It's nothing but a justification for more death.
The claim that Netanyahu propped Hamas up for years made it to John Oliver last night which, in my experience, is often when a bunch of liberals stop denying that something is true. I thought it was a good segment.
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 11 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote:
On November 10 2023 23:39 Magic Powers wrote: I wouldn't be able to point out a single person in this thread who'd fit the description of a Hamas apologist.
Then you are extremely generous with your outlook. When someone starts claiming their genocidal ideology, talk, actions are not. Asks if they are justified. Starts to beat around the bush about the IDF doing the Hamas killing in spite of them taking credit, all the evidence including the self shot body cam and cell cam videos. When people are making claims about how the “west” treats Palestine without seemingly any realization that none of the Muslim or “Eastern” countries recognized Palestine before.
I’m not sure if it is that people are not in tune to the left dog whistle’s the way they are to the right, maybe because they can not believe someone that shares their values in many ways can differ so hard on other things. But for me there is posters here who dog whistle’s have crossed into such blatant territory that it is impossible to ignore.
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
Luckily Labour got purged of their anti-Semitic elements so they can unequivocally support Israel now, that’s much better eh?
I don't care who the Labour party supports. I gave an example of an organisation that had problems with anti semitism.
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 11 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote:
On November 10 2023 23:39 Magic Powers wrote: I wouldn't be able to point out a single person in this thread who'd fit the description of a Hamas apologist.
Then you are extremely generous with your outlook. When someone starts claiming their genocidal ideology, talk, actions are not. Asks if they are justified. Starts to beat around the bush about the IDF doing the Hamas killing in spite of them taking credit, all the evidence including the self shot body cam and cell cam videos. When people are making claims about how the “west” treats Palestine without seemingly any realization that none of the Muslim or “Eastern” countries recognized Palestine before.
I’m not sure if it is that people are not in tune to the left dog whistle’s the way they are to the right, maybe because they can not believe someone that shares their values in many ways can differ so hard on other things. But for me there is posters here who dog whistle’s have crossed into such blatant territory that it is impossible to ignore.
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
This bombardment of Gaza is an atrocity. Call it what you want, war crime or not, it hardly makes a difference. I don't see how such a disproportionate level of aggression can be justified. And that's on top of Israel having a history of oppression.
I'd like people to imagine a hypothetical. Imagine Germany doing something of this nature. Oppression of an ethnic group through Apartheid, displacement, imprisonment and starvation. What would the world say? We all know what the headlines would say.
Regarding your examples of dog whistling, I can only agree with the first one. That can be an indicator. Point two and three don't qualify as dog whistling.
It makes a difference. You can't see how it can be justified because you don't engage with the arguments put forth by the opposing side.
Which argument that justifies the bombardment has not yet been refuted? We've been discussing this for many pages and I can't remember anyone being able to explain why so many civilian deaths are required or acceptable. No one has been able to explain why Israel can't leave it at having stabilized and secured its borders after October 7. Far from it, we've only seen mounting evidence that the counter measures are over the top, that they're only going to lead to further oppression of Palestinians, and that the total lives saved vs lives lost of innocent people speaks heavily against the bombardment.
Please, do engage with these points, I'll gladly continue the discussion.
My previous post wasn't very productive so my bad for that.
Let's go through the hypothetical where Israel does not respond militarily with an invasion into Gaza. In the short term there's no question it would lead to less casualties. Civilian or otherwise. In the long term it will lead to more casualties instead. If we look at it from the perspective of Hamas their expectations were probably as follows: 1. attack 2. kill Israeli's and take hostages 3. celebrate the great victory 4. wait for and endure the military response. Eventually the calls for a ceasefire will become overwhelming and Israel stops fighting, leaving Hamas in control of Gaza 5. exchange the hostages for a release of Hamas prisoners. These prisoners can help for the next attack as we've seen with the last exchange 6. prepare for the next attack on Israel
In that military response many Palestinian civilians and low level Hamas militants will die but the leadership and what they consider important things are relatively safe in their tunnel network below hospitals. For Hamas the Palestinian casualties are martyrs. It doesn't matter if thousands die as long as the leadership survives and continues to be in charge of the Gaza Strip they can fight for another day. Now what do you think happens if there is no military response? Do you think Hamas will see the error of its ways and stop their violence? Of course not. Instead the opposite will happen. The operation went much better than expected. Israel wants the hostages back so the exchange still happens. It shows Hamas and Palestinians that their violent attack works. It shows that Israel is becoming weak and does not want to defend itself anymore. It increases their legitimacy while at the same time destroying any legitimacy the PA had left with their policy of engagement with Israel. As Cerebrale pointed out capability is not static. Reinforcing the border helps temporarily but eventually they'll find a way around it. Because you've not even damaged their capabilities, this moment will come sooner rather than later.
Doing nothing will lead to more support for Hamas, it will lead to more attacks on Israel from Hamas and other organizations, and eventually a military response from Israel becomes inevitable leaving us at the same point we're now. At that point Hamas is even more entrenched making it much more difficult to remove them and causing even more deaths not to mention all the Israeli deaths in the meantime. Additionally they'll have oppressed civilians in Gaza for many more years.
Coming back to the argument of proportionality the reason why I said you're not engaging with the arguments of the opposing side is a post like the following:
On November 08 2023 23:34 Magic Powers wrote: I'd also like to address the claims by some people of Hamas exaggerating the death count: Hamas fighters only make up a small portion of Gazan people. There's no chance that the numbers can be exaggerated to such a degree that the conclusion changes. Lets assume 1/4 or even 1/2 of the reported civilian deaths are actually Hamas fighters - that would change nothing. Reported deaths are 1400 for Israel (no longer increasing) and 10 000 for Gaza (rapidly increasing).
The brutality of the IDF is disproportional no matter how we slice it. So even if we have a stone-cold argument of utility over an emotional one of the morality of killing, it's clear that the level of death and destruction is too much regardless of false reports.
You cannot determine the proportionality of the Israeli response from the numbers provided by the Hamas health ministry for the following reasons:
- A proportional response to the attack from Hamas means the following. I've quoted The Economist before on this so I'll do so again:
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.
Drawing that line is a subjective and contentious process. But Israel’s campaign so far would meet those criteria, argues Aurel Sari, a law professor at the University of Exeter who lectures to NATO armed forces. The scale of Hamas’s attack, its demonstrated intent and proven capability means that invading Gaza or even occupying it temporarily to destroy the group “will be relatively easy to justify” legally, he says.
Notice how it does not require symmetry of civilian casualties between the two sides. The reason for this is because if you do compare civilian casualties like that there's an incentive to use civilians as human shields and a disincentive to protect civilians. For individual strikes it is different. There it has to be proportional to the military advantage gained. But this has to be judged on a case by case basis. - The numbers don't distinguish between militants and civilians - The numbers don't record the cause of death. It could be caused by someone falling from the stairs for all we know - The numbers don't distinguish between deaths caused by Israel or by militants in Gaza - The numbers do not take Hamas' use of human shields into account - The numbers do not take Hamas' use of child soldiers into account - The numbers do not take into account the military value of what was destroyed in the strikes
To summarize even if the amount of deaths is correct you cannot use them to conclude whether Israel's response is (dis)proportional. Your post only really takes the second point into account.
Far from it, we've only seen mounting evidence that the counter measures are over the top, that they're only going to lead to further oppression of Palestinians, and that the total lives saved vs lives lost of innocent people speaks heavily against the bombardment.
What evidence is there that it will lead to more oppression? That depends in large part on what comes next and what we've heard about that is very little and vague. One of the issues is that Netanyahu and his right wing coalition have lost their legitimacy due to 7/10 and are almost certainly going to lose power after the war.
Then one last point I want to make. For Israel 7/10 is an existential threat. Their neighbours stopped invading because they lost militarily multiple times. Their security is based on the fact that the IDF and security agencies are considered world class. A mistake of this size massively dents that reputation. The military response is in part aimed at rebuilding deterrence to prevent other parties from becoming too aggressive. You can argue that what they've already done is enough for that but I think the IDF and Israels politicians disagree. Considering the nature of conflicts in the middle east I understand why.
The IDF was caught with its pants down when Hamas invaded. The Israeli administration was warned but they ignored the warnings. Their intel also failed. They also naively assumed that Hamas was moving away from terrorism (for reasons unbeknownst to me) and pursuing economic goals. They also ignored Hamas’ military exercises, including parachute landings. Hamas didn't just suddenly "grow too powerful". It was a preventable failure by Israel. You can't blame the cars for collapsing a bridge if you don't maintain the bridge and keep it up to standard. Hamas will keep attacking Israel, and Israel didn't take appropriate measures. They lowered their guard for no good reason.
That was in large part due to misdirection from Hamas. They stopped firing rockets in 2021 and purposefully signalled to Israel that they were focused on economic development in the Gaza Strip. At the same time weapon deliveries to the West Bank increased. That is why Israels attention was on the West Bank, why they were allowing more aid into Gaza, and why they gave more work visa to civilians from Gaza. The point that apparently flies over your head when the argument is made that Hamas capability is not static is that they're not a passive actor. They're an active participant in the conflict and quite capable. Furthermore it is not realistic to expect Israels security establishment to work without mistakes. Yes large mistakes were made but this is something that will inevitably happen again.
And yet even this colossal failure has resulted in no more than 1400 deaths on Israel’s side. They can quite clearly be much better defended than this if they want to. The claim that Israel will suffer another 1400 deaths during another future attack is absurd. Yes, they'll lose lives, just as they have over previous decades, but it won't be anything close to 1400. Israel is once again very afraid of Hamas, so they will never let that happen again. It's in their own hands. Hamas has little say in that.
On the 6th of October the prediction that Hamas would overwhelm Israels border defense and massacre more than a thousand people was a fantasy. It still happened. What's absurd is thinking it will not happen again when they've shown time and again they'll continue their attempts. You're also still going back to the amount of deaths while ignoring that looking at death ratios in that way is an incentive to use human shields and a disincentive to protect civilians. It also fails to address the argument that stopping when the border is secured means the assault was a success. That it shows that violence works. That it increases their legitimacy while decreasing the legitimacy of the party that wants to engage with Israel through non-violent means. You're emboldening Hamas to keep attacking in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel.
Israel's willingness to kill and destroy can instead be turned into a willingness to protect. There’s a very specific reason why they’re not doing it: the Netanjahu administration. There’s no other reason. A benevolent administration strictly wouldn’t be doing this, as they would understand that it wouldn’t be right, and it's not even clear that it's productive either. The claim that Israel can only protect its citizens by causing this much death and destruction and more is completely unfounded. Israel has the means to strengthen its borders and improve its intel. There is no excuse.
You completely misunderstand the IDF and Israel. Gantz entry into the war cabinet neutralised the more extreme parties in the coalition as I've already explained earlier. The IDF is also an institution that has long supported a two state solution. Pretty much all the politicians that came out of it recently are to the left of Netanyahu. A coalition that has existed for the small amount of time that it has cannot suddenly change an institution like the IDF. The solution that they'll just have to do a better job at protecting their border to prevent terrorist attacks on their civilians is ridiculous. Hamas has to stop their attacks and recognise Israels right to exist. It has to amend their founding document to remove the anti semetic passages. It has to remove the passages calling for the killing of Jews. It is the bare minimum we should expect from any organisation that aims to represent its people. If they cannot do the bare minimum then Israel has every right to remove them from power. Edit: to be clear they have to follow the laws of war when doing this. Criticism of their conduct is valid.
As to part two of your argument regarding proportionality: Israel has already stabilized the border situation. "It means that the defending state can use as much force as is needed to address the threat—and no more." Israel has accomplished that goal weeks ago. Therefore I reject the argument from The Economist. It's nothing but a justification for more death.
Again you're not engaging with the argument made. Hamas has shown the intent and ability to make the attacks. They've signalled they will continue with them again and again. This is why the threat does not stop when securing the border.
Two encouraging statistics are that over 70% of Palestinians prefer a peaceful Israeli-Palestinian solution over Hamas's terrorism, and over 70% of Israelis prefer a peaceful Israeli-Palestinian solution over Netanyahu's terrorism. If both leaderships can be replaced, then maybe both populations will be one step closer to moving past this lunacy. "It has to be possible to feel the pain in one community, without denying it in another. It has to be."
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 11 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote:
On November 10 2023 23:39 Magic Powers wrote: I wouldn't be able to point out a single person in this thread who'd fit the description of a Hamas apologist.
Then you are extremely generous with your outlook. When someone starts claiming their genocidal ideology, talk, actions are not. Asks if they are justified. Starts to beat around the bush about the IDF doing the Hamas killing in spite of them taking credit, all the evidence including the self shot body cam and cell cam videos. When people are making claims about how the “west” treats Palestine without seemingly any realization that none of the Muslim or “Eastern” countries recognized Palestine before.
I’m not sure if it is that people are not in tune to the left dog whistle’s the way they are to the right, maybe because they can not believe someone that shares their values in many ways can differ so hard on other things. But for me there is posters here who dog whistle’s have crossed into such blatant territory that it is impossible to ignore.
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
Luckily Labour got purged of their anti-Semitic elements so they can unequivocally support Israel now, that’s much better eh?
I don't care who the Labour party supports. I gave an example of an organisation that had problems with anti semitism.
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 11 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote:
On November 10 2023 23:39 Magic Powers wrote: I wouldn't be able to point out a single person in this thread who'd fit the description of a Hamas apologist.
Then you are extremely generous with your outlook. When someone starts claiming their genocidal ideology, talk, actions are not. Asks if they are justified. Starts to beat around the bush about the IDF doing the Hamas killing in spite of them taking credit, all the evidence including the self shot body cam and cell cam videos. When people are making claims about how the “west” treats Palestine without seemingly any realization that none of the Muslim or “Eastern” countries recognized Palestine before.
I’m not sure if it is that people are not in tune to the left dog whistle’s the way they are to the right, maybe because they can not believe someone that shares their values in many ways can differ so hard on other things. But for me there is posters here who dog whistle’s have crossed into such blatant territory that it is impossible to ignore.
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
This bombardment of Gaza is an atrocity. Call it what you want, war crime or not, it hardly makes a difference. I don't see how such a disproportionate level of aggression can be justified. And that's on top of Israel having a history of oppression.
I'd like people to imagine a hypothetical. Imagine Germany doing something of this nature. Oppression of an ethnic group through Apartheid, displacement, imprisonment and starvation. What would the world say? We all know what the headlines would say.
Regarding your examples of dog whistling, I can only agree with the first one. That can be an indicator. Point two and three don't qualify as dog whistling.
It makes a difference. You can't see how it can be justified because you don't engage with the arguments put forth by the opposing side.
Which argument that justifies the bombardment has not yet been refuted? We've been discussing this for many pages and I can't remember anyone being able to explain why so many civilian deaths are required or acceptable. No one has been able to explain why Israel can't leave it at having stabilized and secured its borders after October 7. Far from it, we've only seen mounting evidence that the counter measures are over the top, that they're only going to lead to further oppression of Palestinians, and that the total lives saved vs lives lost of innocent people speaks heavily against the bombardment.
Please, do engage with these points, I'll gladly continue the discussion.
My previous post wasn't very productive so my bad for that.
Let's go through the hypothetical where Israel does not respond militarily with an invasion into Gaza. In the short term there's no question it would lead to less casualties. Civilian or otherwise. In the long term it will lead to more casualties instead. If we look at it from the perspective of Hamas their expectations were probably as follows: 1. attack 2. kill Israeli's and take hostages 3. celebrate the great victory 4. wait for and endure the military response. Eventually the calls for a ceasefire will become overwhelming and Israel stops fighting, leaving Hamas in control of Gaza 5. exchange the hostages for a release of Hamas prisoners. These prisoners can help for the next attack as we've seen with the last exchange 6. prepare for the next attack on Israel
In that military response many Palestinian civilians and low level Hamas militants will die but the leadership and what they consider important things are relatively safe in their tunnel network below hospitals. For Hamas the Palestinian casualties are martyrs. It doesn't matter if thousands die as long as the leadership survives and continues to be in charge of the Gaza Strip they can fight for another day. Now what do you think happens if there is no military response? Do you think Hamas will see the error of its ways and stop their violence? Of course not. Instead the opposite will happen. The operation went much better than expected. Israel wants the hostages back so the exchange still happens. It shows Hamas and Palestinians that their violent attack works. It shows that Israel is becoming weak and does not want to defend itself anymore. It increases their legitimacy while at the same time destroying any legitimacy the PA had left with their policy of engagement with Israel. As Cerebrale pointed out capability is not static. Reinforcing the border helps temporarily but eventually they'll find a way around it. Because you've not even damaged their capabilities, this moment will come sooner rather than later.
Doing nothing will lead to more support for Hamas, it will lead to more attacks on Israel from Hamas and other organizations, and eventually a military response from Israel becomes inevitable leaving us at the same point we're now. At that point Hamas is even more entrenched making it much more difficult to remove them and causing even more deaths not to mention all the Israeli deaths in the meantime. Additionally they'll have oppressed civilians in Gaza for many more years.
Coming back to the argument of proportionality the reason why I said you're not engaging with the arguments of the opposing side is a post like the following:
On November 08 2023 23:34 Magic Powers wrote: I'd also like to address the claims by some people of Hamas exaggerating the death count: Hamas fighters only make up a small portion of Gazan people. There's no chance that the numbers can be exaggerated to such a degree that the conclusion changes. Lets assume 1/4 or even 1/2 of the reported civilian deaths are actually Hamas fighters - that would change nothing. Reported deaths are 1400 for Israel (no longer increasing) and 10 000 for Gaza (rapidly increasing).
The brutality of the IDF is disproportional no matter how we slice it. So even if we have a stone-cold argument of utility over an emotional one of the morality of killing, it's clear that the level of death and destruction is too much regardless of false reports.
You cannot determine the proportionality of the Israeli response from the numbers provided by the Hamas health ministry for the following reasons:
- A proportional response to the attack from Hamas means the following. I've quoted The Economist before on this so I'll do so again:
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.
Drawing that line is a subjective and contentious process. But Israel’s campaign so far would meet those criteria, argues Aurel Sari, a law professor at the University of Exeter who lectures to NATO armed forces. The scale of Hamas’s attack, its demonstrated intent and proven capability means that invading Gaza or even occupying it temporarily to destroy the group “will be relatively easy to justify” legally, he says.
Notice how it does not require symmetry of civilian casualties between the two sides. The reason for this is because if you do compare civilian casualties like that there's an incentive to use civilians as human shields and a disincentive to protect civilians. For individual strikes it is different. There it has to be proportional to the military advantage gained. But this has to be judged on a case by case basis. - The numbers don't distinguish between militants and civilians - The numbers don't record the cause of death. It could be caused by someone falling from the stairs for all we know - The numbers don't distinguish between deaths caused by Israel or by militants in Gaza - The numbers do not take Hamas' use of human shields into account - The numbers do not take Hamas' use of child soldiers into account - The numbers do not take into account the military value of what was destroyed in the strikes
To summarize even if the amount of deaths is correct you cannot use them to conclude whether Israel's response is (dis)proportional. Your post only really takes the second point into account.
Far from it, we've only seen mounting evidence that the counter measures are over the top, that they're only going to lead to further oppression of Palestinians, and that the total lives saved vs lives lost of innocent people speaks heavily against the bombardment.
What evidence is there that it will lead to more oppression? That depends in large part on what comes next and what we've heard about that is very little and vague. One of the issues is that Netanyahu and his right wing coalition have lost their legitimacy due to 7/10 and are almost certainly going to lose power after the war.
Then one last point I want to make. For Israel 7/10 is an existential threat. Their neighbours stopped invading because they lost militarily multiple times. Their security is based on the fact that the IDF and security agencies are considered world class. A mistake of this size massively dents that reputation. The military response is in part aimed at rebuilding deterrence to prevent other parties from becoming too aggressive. You can argue that what they've already done is enough for that but I think the IDF and Israels politicians disagree. Considering the nature of conflicts in the middle east I understand why.
The IDF was caught with its pants down when Hamas invaded. The Israeli administration was warned but they ignored the warnings. Their intel also failed. They also naively assumed that Hamas was moving away from terrorism (for reasons unbeknownst to me) and pursuing economic goals. They also ignored Hamas’ military exercises, including parachute landings. Hamas didn't just suddenly "grow too powerful". It was a preventable failure by Israel. You can't blame the cars for collapsing a bridge if you don't maintain the bridge and keep it up to standard. Hamas will keep attacking Israel, and Israel didn't take appropriate measures. They lowered their guard for no good reason.
That was in large part due to misdirection from Hamas. They stopped firing rockets in 2021 and purposefully signalled to Israel that they were focused on economic development in the Gaza Strip. At the same time weapon deliveries to the West Bank increased. That is why Israels attention was on the West Bank, why they were allowing more aid into Gaza, and why they gave more work visa to civilians from Gaza. The point that apparently flies over your head when the argument is made that Hamas capability is not static is that they're not a passive actor. They're an active participant in the conflict and quite capable. Furthermore it is not realistic to expect Israels security establishment to work without mistakes. Yes large mistakes were made but this is something that will inevitably happen again.
And yet even this colossal failure has resulted in no more than 1400 deaths on Israel’s side. They can quite clearly be much better defended than this if they want to. The claim that Israel will suffer another 1400 deaths during another future attack is absurd. Yes, they'll lose lives, just as they have over previous decades, but it won't be anything close to 1400. Israel is once again very afraid of Hamas, so they will never let that happen again. It's in their own hands. Hamas has little say in that.
On the 6th of October the prediction that Hamas would overwhelm Israels border defense and massacre more than a thousand people was a fantasy. It still happened. What's absurd is thinking it will not happen again when they've shown time and again they'll continue their attempts. You're also still going back to the amount of deaths while ignoring that looking at death ratios in that way is an incentive to use human shields and a disincentive to protect civilians. It also fails to address the argument that stopping when the border is secured means the assault was a success. That it shows that violence works. That it increases their legitimacy while decreasing the legitimacy of the party that wants to engage with Israel through non-violent means. You're emboldening Hamas to keep attacking in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel.
Israel's willingness to kill and destroy can instead be turned into a willingness to protect. There’s a very specific reason why they’re not doing it: the Netanjahu administration. There’s no other reason. A benevolent administration strictly wouldn’t be doing this, as they would understand that it wouldn’t be right, and it's not even clear that it's productive either. The claim that Israel can only protect its citizens by causing this much death and destruction and more is completely unfounded. Israel has the means to strengthen its borders and improve its intel. There is no excuse.
You completely misunderstand the IDF and Israel. Gantz entry into the war cabinet neutralised the more extreme parties in the coalition as I've already explained earlier. The IDF is also an institution that has long supported a two state solution. Pretty much all the politicians that came out of it recently are to the left of Netanyahu. A coalition that has existed for the small amount of time that it has cannot suddenly change an institution like the IDF. The solution that they'll just have to do a better job at protecting their border to prevent terrorist attacks on their civilians is ridiculous. Hamas has to stop their attacks and recognise Israels right to exist. It has to amend their founding document to remove the anti semetic passages. It has to remove the passages calling for the killing of Jews. It is the bare minimum we should expect from any organisation that aims to represent its people. If they cannot do the bare minimum then Israel has every right to remove them from power. Edit: to be clear they have to follow the laws of war when doing this. Criticism of their conduct is valid.
As to part two of your argument regarding proportionality: Israel has already stabilized the border situation. "It means that the defending state can use as much force as is needed to address the threat—and no more." Israel has accomplished that goal weeks ago. Therefore I reject the argument from The Economist. It's nothing but a justification for more death.
Again you're not engaging with the argument made. Hamas has shown the intent and ability to make the attacks. They've signalled they will continue with them again and again. This is why the threat does not stop when securing the border.
The absolute worst attack Israel has ever suffered has cost 1400 Israeli lives. The absolute worst retaliation that Israel has ever committed has cost 10 000 Palestinian lives. You're not thinking rationally if you think Israel can't effectively defend against Hamas just by strictly defending their borders without destroying Hamas. Israel is currently turning Gaza into rubble. They have the capacity to literally glass the entire strip. They have the capacity to destroy entire countries. You're out of your mind if you think Hamas is powerful enough to seriously threaten Israel.
On November 14 2023 00:55 Magic Powers wrote: You're not thinking rationally if you think Israel can't effectively defend against Hamas just by strictly defending their borders without destroying Hamas.
On November 13 2023 17:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: Tbh my impression is that most non-muslim anti-semites are actually more anti-muslim than they are anti-semitic, even if they are both.
what is your method of measurement?
my personal experience with anti-semitism amongst the crowd that is both is they take great offense with the how Judaism deals with the new testament. So the italian-catholics i know that are anti-semitic have a deeper hatred of jews because they disagree over some core religious ideas. While the pious/orthodox jews I know fire back with "you can't even communicate in Hebrew; what would you know about the bible?". "Jesus Christ never existed". Stuff like that.
For this group anti-semitism is deep and personal in a way their anti-muslim sentiment is not. When a Jew says "Jesus Christ never existed and you don't even know the hebrew alphabet" .... that is a deep and personal shot for someone who views Jesus Christ as their personal saviour. Muslims don't talk in this manner.
These are my personal experiences and so I'm not going to make a broad generalization that "most non-muslim anti-semites are actually more anti-semitic than they are anti-muslim" though. This becomes a contest of victimhood credentials.
I don't want to get into a contest of victimhood credentials because it is bad for my self esteem.
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 11 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote: [quote] Then you are extremely generous with your outlook. When someone starts claiming their genocidal ideology, talk, actions are not. Asks if they are justified. Starts to beat around the bush about the IDF doing the Hamas killing in spite of them taking credit, all the evidence including the self shot body cam and cell cam videos. When people are making claims about how the “west” treats Palestine without seemingly any realization that none of the Muslim or “Eastern” countries recognized Palestine before.
I’m not sure if it is that people are not in tune to the left dog whistle’s the way they are to the right, maybe because they can not believe someone that shares their values in many ways can differ so hard on other things. But for me there is posters here who dog whistle’s have crossed into such blatant territory that it is impossible to ignore.
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
Luckily Labour got purged of their anti-Semitic elements so they can unequivocally support Israel now, that’s much better eh?
I don't care who the Labour party supports. I gave an example of an organisation that had problems with anti semitism.
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 11 2023 00:56 JimmiC wrote: [quote] Then you are extremely generous with your outlook. When someone starts claiming their genocidal ideology, talk, actions are not. Asks if they are justified. Starts to beat around the bush about the IDF doing the Hamas killing in spite of them taking credit, all the evidence including the self shot body cam and cell cam videos. When people are making claims about how the “west” treats Palestine without seemingly any realization that none of the Muslim or “Eastern” countries recognized Palestine before.
I’m not sure if it is that people are not in tune to the left dog whistle’s the way they are to the right, maybe because they can not believe someone that shares their values in many ways can differ so hard on other things. But for me there is posters here who dog whistle’s have crossed into such blatant territory that it is impossible to ignore.
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
This bombardment of Gaza is an atrocity. Call it what you want, war crime or not, it hardly makes a difference. I don't see how such a disproportionate level of aggression can be justified. And that's on top of Israel having a history of oppression.
I'd like people to imagine a hypothetical. Imagine Germany doing something of this nature. Oppression of an ethnic group through Apartheid, displacement, imprisonment and starvation. What would the world say? We all know what the headlines would say.
Regarding your examples of dog whistling, I can only agree with the first one. That can be an indicator. Point two and three don't qualify as dog whistling.
It makes a difference. You can't see how it can be justified because you don't engage with the arguments put forth by the opposing side.
Which argument that justifies the bombardment has not yet been refuted? We've been discussing this for many pages and I can't remember anyone being able to explain why so many civilian deaths are required or acceptable. No one has been able to explain why Israel can't leave it at having stabilized and secured its borders after October 7. Far from it, we've only seen mounting evidence that the counter measures are over the top, that they're only going to lead to further oppression of Palestinians, and that the total lives saved vs lives lost of innocent people speaks heavily against the bombardment.
Please, do engage with these points, I'll gladly continue the discussion.
My previous post wasn't very productive so my bad for that.
Let's go through the hypothetical where Israel does not respond militarily with an invasion into Gaza. In the short term there's no question it would lead to less casualties. Civilian or otherwise. In the long term it will lead to more casualties instead. If we look at it from the perspective of Hamas their expectations were probably as follows: 1. attack 2. kill Israeli's and take hostages 3. celebrate the great victory 4. wait for and endure the military response. Eventually the calls for a ceasefire will become overwhelming and Israel stops fighting, leaving Hamas in control of Gaza 5. exchange the hostages for a release of Hamas prisoners. These prisoners can help for the next attack as we've seen with the last exchange 6. prepare for the next attack on Israel
In that military response many Palestinian civilians and low level Hamas militants will die but the leadership and what they consider important things are relatively safe in their tunnel network below hospitals. For Hamas the Palestinian casualties are martyrs. It doesn't matter if thousands die as long as the leadership survives and continues to be in charge of the Gaza Strip they can fight for another day. Now what do you think happens if there is no military response? Do you think Hamas will see the error of its ways and stop their violence? Of course not. Instead the opposite will happen. The operation went much better than expected. Israel wants the hostages back so the exchange still happens. It shows Hamas and Palestinians that their violent attack works. It shows that Israel is becoming weak and does not want to defend itself anymore. It increases their legitimacy while at the same time destroying any legitimacy the PA had left with their policy of engagement with Israel. As Cerebrale pointed out capability is not static. Reinforcing the border helps temporarily but eventually they'll find a way around it. Because you've not even damaged their capabilities, this moment will come sooner rather than later.
Doing nothing will lead to more support for Hamas, it will lead to more attacks on Israel from Hamas and other organizations, and eventually a military response from Israel becomes inevitable leaving us at the same point we're now. At that point Hamas is even more entrenched making it much more difficult to remove them and causing even more deaths not to mention all the Israeli deaths in the meantime. Additionally they'll have oppressed civilians in Gaza for many more years.
Coming back to the argument of proportionality the reason why I said you're not engaging with the arguments of the opposing side is a post like the following:
On November 08 2023 23:34 Magic Powers wrote: I'd also like to address the claims by some people of Hamas exaggerating the death count: Hamas fighters only make up a small portion of Gazan people. There's no chance that the numbers can be exaggerated to such a degree that the conclusion changes. Lets assume 1/4 or even 1/2 of the reported civilian deaths are actually Hamas fighters - that would change nothing. Reported deaths are 1400 for Israel (no longer increasing) and 10 000 for Gaza (rapidly increasing).
The brutality of the IDF is disproportional no matter how we slice it. So even if we have a stone-cold argument of utility over an emotional one of the morality of killing, it's clear that the level of death and destruction is too much regardless of false reports.
You cannot determine the proportionality of the Israeli response from the numbers provided by the Hamas health ministry for the following reasons:
- A proportional response to the attack from Hamas means the following. I've quoted The Economist before on this so I'll do so again:
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.
Drawing that line is a subjective and contentious process. But Israel’s campaign so far would meet those criteria, argues Aurel Sari, a law professor at the University of Exeter who lectures to NATO armed forces. The scale of Hamas’s attack, its demonstrated intent and proven capability means that invading Gaza or even occupying it temporarily to destroy the group “will be relatively easy to justify” legally, he says.
Notice how it does not require symmetry of civilian casualties between the two sides. The reason for this is because if you do compare civilian casualties like that there's an incentive to use civilians as human shields and a disincentive to protect civilians. For individual strikes it is different. There it has to be proportional to the military advantage gained. But this has to be judged on a case by case basis. - The numbers don't distinguish between militants and civilians - The numbers don't record the cause of death. It could be caused by someone falling from the stairs for all we know - The numbers don't distinguish between deaths caused by Israel or by militants in Gaza - The numbers do not take Hamas' use of human shields into account - The numbers do not take Hamas' use of child soldiers into account - The numbers do not take into account the military value of what was destroyed in the strikes
To summarize even if the amount of deaths is correct you cannot use them to conclude whether Israel's response is (dis)proportional. Your post only really takes the second point into account.
Far from it, we've only seen mounting evidence that the counter measures are over the top, that they're only going to lead to further oppression of Palestinians, and that the total lives saved vs lives lost of innocent people speaks heavily against the bombardment.
What evidence is there that it will lead to more oppression? That depends in large part on what comes next and what we've heard about that is very little and vague. One of the issues is that Netanyahu and his right wing coalition have lost their legitimacy due to 7/10 and are almost certainly going to lose power after the war.
Then one last point I want to make. For Israel 7/10 is an existential threat. Their neighbours stopped invading because they lost militarily multiple times. Their security is based on the fact that the IDF and security agencies are considered world class. A mistake of this size massively dents that reputation. The military response is in part aimed at rebuilding deterrence to prevent other parties from becoming too aggressive. You can argue that what they've already done is enough for that but I think the IDF and Israels politicians disagree. Considering the nature of conflicts in the middle east I understand why.
The IDF was caught with its pants down when Hamas invaded. The Israeli administration was warned but they ignored the warnings. Their intel also failed. They also naively assumed that Hamas was moving away from terrorism (for reasons unbeknownst to me) and pursuing economic goals. They also ignored Hamas’ military exercises, including parachute landings. Hamas didn't just suddenly "grow too powerful". It was a preventable failure by Israel. You can't blame the cars for collapsing a bridge if you don't maintain the bridge and keep it up to standard. Hamas will keep attacking Israel, and Israel didn't take appropriate measures. They lowered their guard for no good reason.
That was in large part due to misdirection from Hamas. They stopped firing rockets in 2021 and purposefully signalled to Israel that they were focused on economic development in the Gaza Strip. At the same time weapon deliveries to the West Bank increased. That is why Israels attention was on the West Bank, why they were allowing more aid into Gaza, and why they gave more work visa to civilians from Gaza. The point that apparently flies over your head when the argument is made that Hamas capability is not static is that they're not a passive actor. They're an active participant in the conflict and quite capable. Furthermore it is not realistic to expect Israels security establishment to work without mistakes. Yes large mistakes were made but this is something that will inevitably happen again.
And yet even this colossal failure has resulted in no more than 1400 deaths on Israel’s side. They can quite clearly be much better defended than this if they want to. The claim that Israel will suffer another 1400 deaths during another future attack is absurd. Yes, they'll lose lives, just as they have over previous decades, but it won't be anything close to 1400. Israel is once again very afraid of Hamas, so they will never let that happen again. It's in their own hands. Hamas has little say in that.
On the 6th of October the prediction that Hamas would overwhelm Israels border defense and massacre more than a thousand people was a fantasy. It still happened. What's absurd is thinking it will not happen again when they've shown time and again they'll continue their attempts. You're also still going back to the amount of deaths while ignoring that looking at death ratios in that way is an incentive to use human shields and a disincentive to protect civilians. It also fails to address the argument that stopping when the border is secured means the assault was a success. That it shows that violence works. That it increases their legitimacy while decreasing the legitimacy of the party that wants to engage with Israel through non-violent means. You're emboldening Hamas to keep attacking in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel.
Israel's willingness to kill and destroy can instead be turned into a willingness to protect. There’s a very specific reason why they’re not doing it: the Netanjahu administration. There’s no other reason. A benevolent administration strictly wouldn’t be doing this, as they would understand that it wouldn’t be right, and it's not even clear that it's productive either. The claim that Israel can only protect its citizens by causing this much death and destruction and more is completely unfounded. Israel has the means to strengthen its borders and improve its intel. There is no excuse.
You completely misunderstand the IDF and Israel. Gantz entry into the war cabinet neutralised the more extreme parties in the coalition as I've already explained earlier. The IDF is also an institution that has long supported a two state solution. Pretty much all the politicians that came out of it recently are to the left of Netanyahu. A coalition that has existed for the small amount of time that it has cannot suddenly change an institution like the IDF. The solution that they'll just have to do a better job at protecting their border to prevent terrorist attacks on their civilians is ridiculous. Hamas has to stop their attacks and recognise Israels right to exist. It has to amend their founding document to remove the anti semetic passages. It has to remove the passages calling for the killing of Jews. It is the bare minimum we should expect from any organisation that aims to represent its people. If they cannot do the bare minimum then Israel has every right to remove them from power. Edit: to be clear they have to follow the laws of war when doing this. Criticism of their conduct is valid.
As to part two of your argument regarding proportionality: Israel has already stabilized the border situation. "It means that the defending state can use as much force as is needed to address the threat—and no more." Israel has accomplished that goal weeks ago. Therefore I reject the argument from The Economist. It's nothing but a justification for more death.
Again you're not engaging with the argument made. Hamas has shown the intent and ability to make the attacks. They've signalled they will continue with them again and again. This is why the threat does not stop when securing the border.
The absolute worst attack Israel has ever suffered has cost 1400 Israeli lives. The absolute worst retaliation that Israel has ever committed has cost 10 000 Palestinian lives. You're not thinking rationally if you think Israel can't effectively defend against Hamas just by strictly defending their borders without destroying Hamas. Israel is currently turning Gaza into rubble. They have the capacity to literally glass the entire strip. They have the capacity to destroy entire countries. You're out of your mind if you think Hamas is powerful enough to seriously threaten Israel.
Just as a heads up, Israel changed their Oct 7 death toll to "around 1200" a couple days ago.
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote: [quote]
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
Luckily Labour got purged of their anti-Semitic elements so they can unequivocally support Israel now, that’s much better eh?
I don't care who the Labour party supports. I gave an example of an organisation that had problems with anti semitism.
On November 12 2023 18:25 Magic Powers wrote:
On November 12 2023 10:26 RvB wrote:
On November 10 2023 21:03 Godwrath wrote: [quote]
I said that people denying that there is a ethnical cleanse going on are genocide enablers, not that Israel is commiting genocide. I stand by it, i don't think it's that confusing since most of the time it's a two step ladder, and at the time, people were discussing about letting Israel bomb the hell out of Gaza as a reasonable response "to stop Hamas", yourself included.
The implication of calling others genocide enablers is pretty clear. It also shows the double standards of some in the thread. Calling others genocide enablers is not called out but anti semitism is. As for the bombing I've already explained how removing them from power in Gaza is legal under international law. That Israel uses more powerful weapons does not make it disproportionate.
On November 11 2023 02:32 Magic Powers wrote: [quote]
I'm open to being educated about left-wing dog whistling. Is HasanAbi one of the people doing it? Can you also give an example of a comment in this thread?
About recognition of a/the State of Palestine: I'm reading that Egypt has in fact recognized it, but the US has not. Neither have Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico or the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia). You are right that other Middle Eastern countries have not recognized the State of Palestine, but that can be explained by the tensions with Israel. Why single out the ME (ignoring Egypt?) if Europe and the US aren't taking a strong stance? 138 of the 193 states in the UN apparently fully recognize Palestine. What about the rest?
I'm not an expert on dog whistles but I've seen anti Semites do the following at least: 1. From the river to the sea chant 2. Pulling out the bingo book of war crimes whenever Israel does something and instantly labelling everything a war crime even if we don't even have nearly enough information to establish such a fact 3. Hiding behind 'criticism of Israel is not anti semitism'. True, but anti Semites also use this to hide their anti semitism just like racists say that being anti immigration does not make you racist.
As for people in the thread I don't know if anyone is anti semetic. I'm working off the assumption that everybody has some decency and is not anti semetic. But from the top of my head these are some prominent people/organisations that are anti semetic in my view:
Corbyn's labour had issues with anti semitism, Tlaib, Melenchon, two Dutch parties in parliament used from the river to the sea chant and one of them has one Palestine with the Palestinian flag in their party programme.
This bombardment of Gaza is an atrocity. Call it what you want, war crime or not, it hardly makes a difference. I don't see how such a disproportionate level of aggression can be justified. And that's on top of Israel having a history of oppression.
I'd like people to imagine a hypothetical. Imagine Germany doing something of this nature. Oppression of an ethnic group through Apartheid, displacement, imprisonment and starvation. What would the world say? We all know what the headlines would say.
Regarding your examples of dog whistling, I can only agree with the first one. That can be an indicator. Point two and three don't qualify as dog whistling.
It makes a difference. You can't see how it can be justified because you don't engage with the arguments put forth by the opposing side.
Which argument that justifies the bombardment has not yet been refuted? We've been discussing this for many pages and I can't remember anyone being able to explain why so many civilian deaths are required or acceptable. No one has been able to explain why Israel can't leave it at having stabilized and secured its borders after October 7. Far from it, we've only seen mounting evidence that the counter measures are over the top, that they're only going to lead to further oppression of Palestinians, and that the total lives saved vs lives lost of innocent people speaks heavily against the bombardment.
Please, do engage with these points, I'll gladly continue the discussion.
My previous post wasn't very productive so my bad for that.
Let's go through the hypothetical where Israel does not respond militarily with an invasion into Gaza. In the short term there's no question it would lead to less casualties. Civilian or otherwise. In the long term it will lead to more casualties instead. If we look at it from the perspective of Hamas their expectations were probably as follows: 1. attack 2. kill Israeli's and take hostages 3. celebrate the great victory 4. wait for and endure the military response. Eventually the calls for a ceasefire will become overwhelming and Israel stops fighting, leaving Hamas in control of Gaza 5. exchange the hostages for a release of Hamas prisoners. These prisoners can help for the next attack as we've seen with the last exchange 6. prepare for the next attack on Israel
In that military response many Palestinian civilians and low level Hamas militants will die but the leadership and what they consider important things are relatively safe in their tunnel network below hospitals. For Hamas the Palestinian casualties are martyrs. It doesn't matter if thousands die as long as the leadership survives and continues to be in charge of the Gaza Strip they can fight for another day. Now what do you think happens if there is no military response? Do you think Hamas will see the error of its ways and stop their violence? Of course not. Instead the opposite will happen. The operation went much better than expected. Israel wants the hostages back so the exchange still happens. It shows Hamas and Palestinians that their violent attack works. It shows that Israel is becoming weak and does not want to defend itself anymore. It increases their legitimacy while at the same time destroying any legitimacy the PA had left with their policy of engagement with Israel. As Cerebrale pointed out capability is not static. Reinforcing the border helps temporarily but eventually they'll find a way around it. Because you've not even damaged their capabilities, this moment will come sooner rather than later.
Doing nothing will lead to more support for Hamas, it will lead to more attacks on Israel from Hamas and other organizations, and eventually a military response from Israel becomes inevitable leaving us at the same point we're now. At that point Hamas is even more entrenched making it much more difficult to remove them and causing even more deaths not to mention all the Israeli deaths in the meantime. Additionally they'll have oppressed civilians in Gaza for many more years.
Coming back to the argument of proportionality the reason why I said you're not engaging with the arguments of the opposing side is a post like the following:
On November 08 2023 23:34 Magic Powers wrote: I'd also like to address the claims by some people of Hamas exaggerating the death count: Hamas fighters only make up a small portion of Gazan people. There's no chance that the numbers can be exaggerated to such a degree that the conclusion changes. Lets assume 1/4 or even 1/2 of the reported civilian deaths are actually Hamas fighters - that would change nothing. Reported deaths are 1400 for Israel (no longer increasing) and 10 000 for Gaza (rapidly increasing).
The brutality of the IDF is disproportional no matter how we slice it. So even if we have a stone-cold argument of utility over an emotional one of the morality of killing, it's clear that the level of death and destruction is too much regardless of false reports.
You cannot determine the proportionality of the Israeli response from the numbers provided by the Hamas health ministry for the following reasons:
- A proportional response to the attack from Hamas means the following. I've quoted The Economist before on this so I'll do so again:
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.
Drawing that line is a subjective and contentious process. But Israel’s campaign so far would meet those criteria, argues Aurel Sari, a law professor at the University of Exeter who lectures to NATO armed forces. The scale of Hamas’s attack, its demonstrated intent and proven capability means that invading Gaza or even occupying it temporarily to destroy the group “will be relatively easy to justify” legally, he says.
Notice how it does not require symmetry of civilian casualties between the two sides. The reason for this is because if you do compare civilian casualties like that there's an incentive to use civilians as human shields and a disincentive to protect civilians. For individual strikes it is different. There it has to be proportional to the military advantage gained. But this has to be judged on a case by case basis. - The numbers don't distinguish between militants and civilians - The numbers don't record the cause of death. It could be caused by someone falling from the stairs for all we know - The numbers don't distinguish between deaths caused by Israel or by militants in Gaza - The numbers do not take Hamas' use of human shields into account - The numbers do not take Hamas' use of child soldiers into account - The numbers do not take into account the military value of what was destroyed in the strikes
To summarize even if the amount of deaths is correct you cannot use them to conclude whether Israel's response is (dis)proportional. Your post only really takes the second point into account.
Far from it, we've only seen mounting evidence that the counter measures are over the top, that they're only going to lead to further oppression of Palestinians, and that the total lives saved vs lives lost of innocent people speaks heavily against the bombardment.
What evidence is there that it will lead to more oppression? That depends in large part on what comes next and what we've heard about that is very little and vague. One of the issues is that Netanyahu and his right wing coalition have lost their legitimacy due to 7/10 and are almost certainly going to lose power after the war.
Then one last point I want to make. For Israel 7/10 is an existential threat. Their neighbours stopped invading because they lost militarily multiple times. Their security is based on the fact that the IDF and security agencies are considered world class. A mistake of this size massively dents that reputation. The military response is in part aimed at rebuilding deterrence to prevent other parties from becoming too aggressive. You can argue that what they've already done is enough for that but I think the IDF and Israels politicians disagree. Considering the nature of conflicts in the middle east I understand why.
The IDF was caught with its pants down when Hamas invaded. The Israeli administration was warned but they ignored the warnings. Their intel also failed. They also naively assumed that Hamas was moving away from terrorism (for reasons unbeknownst to me) and pursuing economic goals. They also ignored Hamas’ military exercises, including parachute landings. Hamas didn't just suddenly "grow too powerful". It was a preventable failure by Israel. You can't blame the cars for collapsing a bridge if you don't maintain the bridge and keep it up to standard. Hamas will keep attacking Israel, and Israel didn't take appropriate measures. They lowered their guard for no good reason.
That was in large part due to misdirection from Hamas. They stopped firing rockets in 2021 and purposefully signalled to Israel that they were focused on economic development in the Gaza Strip. At the same time weapon deliveries to the West Bank increased. That is why Israels attention was on the West Bank, why they were allowing more aid into Gaza, and why they gave more work visa to civilians from Gaza. The point that apparently flies over your head when the argument is made that Hamas capability is not static is that they're not a passive actor. They're an active participant in the conflict and quite capable. Furthermore it is not realistic to expect Israels security establishment to work without mistakes. Yes large mistakes were made but this is something that will inevitably happen again.
And yet even this colossal failure has resulted in no more than 1400 deaths on Israel’s side. They can quite clearly be much better defended than this if they want to. The claim that Israel will suffer another 1400 deaths during another future attack is absurd. Yes, they'll lose lives, just as they have over previous decades, but it won't be anything close to 1400. Israel is once again very afraid of Hamas, so they will never let that happen again. It's in their own hands. Hamas has little say in that.
On the 6th of October the prediction that Hamas would overwhelm Israels border defense and massacre more than a thousand people was a fantasy. It still happened. What's absurd is thinking it will not happen again when they've shown time and again they'll continue their attempts. You're also still going back to the amount of deaths while ignoring that looking at death ratios in that way is an incentive to use human shields and a disincentive to protect civilians. It also fails to address the argument that stopping when the border is secured means the assault was a success. That it shows that violence works. That it increases their legitimacy while decreasing the legitimacy of the party that wants to engage with Israel through non-violent means. You're emboldening Hamas to keep attacking in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel.
Israel's willingness to kill and destroy can instead be turned into a willingness to protect. There’s a very specific reason why they’re not doing it: the Netanjahu administration. There’s no other reason. A benevolent administration strictly wouldn’t be doing this, as they would understand that it wouldn’t be right, and it's not even clear that it's productive either. The claim that Israel can only protect its citizens by causing this much death and destruction and more is completely unfounded. Israel has the means to strengthen its borders and improve its intel. There is no excuse.
You completely misunderstand the IDF and Israel. Gantz entry into the war cabinet neutralised the more extreme parties in the coalition as I've already explained earlier. The IDF is also an institution that has long supported a two state solution. Pretty much all the politicians that came out of it recently are to the left of Netanyahu. A coalition that has existed for the small amount of time that it has cannot suddenly change an institution like the IDF. The solution that they'll just have to do a better job at protecting their border to prevent terrorist attacks on their civilians is ridiculous. Hamas has to stop their attacks and recognise Israels right to exist. It has to amend their founding document to remove the anti semetic passages. It has to remove the passages calling for the killing of Jews. It is the bare minimum we should expect from any organisation that aims to represent its people. If they cannot do the bare minimum then Israel has every right to remove them from power. Edit: to be clear they have to follow the laws of war when doing this. Criticism of their conduct is valid.
As to part two of your argument regarding proportionality: Israel has already stabilized the border situation. "It means that the defending state can use as much force as is needed to address the threat—and no more." Israel has accomplished that goal weeks ago. Therefore I reject the argument from The Economist. It's nothing but a justification for more death.
Again you're not engaging with the argument made. Hamas has shown the intent and ability to make the attacks. They've signalled they will continue with them again and again. This is why the threat does not stop when securing the border.
The absolute worst attack Israel has ever suffered has cost 1400 Israeli lives. The absolute worst retaliation that Israel has ever committed has cost 10 000 Palestinian lives. You're not thinking rationally if you think Israel can't effectively defend against Hamas just by strictly defending their borders without destroying Hamas. Israel is currently turning Gaza into rubble. They have the capacity to literally glass the entire strip. They have the capacity to destroy entire countries. You're out of your mind if you think Hamas is powerful enough to seriously threaten Israel.
Just as a heads up, Israel changed their Oct 7 death toll to "around 1200" a couple days ago.
the 9/11 death toll changed on a weekly basis for months. death tolls on both sides are hard to determine. we're living under the fog of war.
Before 1991 Desert Storm began the Iraqis had "500,000 battle hardened troops well prepared by years of the Iran//Iraq war". Then what happened? It was a rout. This misinformation occurred under the fog of war.
EPT
