Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 313

On August 28 2024 14:35 PremoBeats wrote:
1.
As it stands: I don’t argue dishonestly as I base my opinion on numbers, data, facts and coherent, non-fallacious reasoning.

2.
a+b+c. You provided a “development” where you used the word fascist so often, that it seems that you have to say it so often to believe it yourself. Did he call himself a fascist? How many other people did?
It was you who said that “ here's a guy whose father left Israel because Israel wasn't fascistic enough in his view”. So first, you spin a story, that Israel is not fascist enough, so the guy moves to another country because he has more control in the country he just left from in the new country? Uh, yeah…
How do you prove this unfounded accusation anyway? Where did he ever say he left Israel because it wasn’t fascist enough? Or is this another one of those unfounded guesses?
How exactly did Ben N. incite violence? How did he call for the asssassination? I am eager to see if one of your allegations can actually be proven.

Well, if you equate fascism and Revisionist Zionism then no, you are not only stating historical facts.

You further attribute motives to Benzion N. without providing proof so far. You also made the loaded notion that he raised “a good little fascist”, again begging the question. You said in the same line of argumentation that Israel has a constitution and that it was changed so that Arabs have fewer rights (I won’t look at a whole article and search for an answer… it is on you to support the point/accusation you made), which obviously is a lie as Israel doesn’t have a constitution. Further, Arabs have the same rights as Jews in Israel since 1966 when martial law was lifted.
You attribute a motive that fits your narrative to his Hamas policy (because no, actually trying to give the Gazan communities money to help economically or humanitarily is completely out of the question although Israel has been doing it for years) and you also attribute the motive of ethnic cleansing (did he even once say so? Or ANY whistleblower?)
d. As I said earlier: You are making accusations, so you have to post the evidence. The burden of proof is on you; I will not look it up for you.
So which Israeli constitution did you speak of?
Which rights do Jews have in Israel that Arabs don’t?
e. Your reasoning is flawed again, as I said that the settlements should not happen. I can be for a Jewish state and against settlements. These two don’t contradict each other. I further never said that I particularly like the current government, so again a straw man.
On another note as this also came up often: Settling and ethnic cleansing are not the same. Creating a Muslim majority does not necessarily mean that the indigenous population has to leave or needs to be removed.
f. I don’t deny it happened, I question your knowledge of the motif which is obvious if you read my questions. So again: Is there any internal document or any government official that supports these supposed motives? Any leak of this big government where many disagreed over the years with Netanyahu’s policies?

A "complex and subject to interpretation" intention could be that the money went to local governments. Gazan authorities. So perhaps humanitarian aid? Construction material for schools? Is that such an implausible idea, looking at the vast amounts of humanitarian aid that Israel is sending to Gaza every year and the quote I posted that follows from your own source?

Yes, that is my point. The only things you care about are the ones that feed into your thinking. Hence you leave aside all data (soldier-to-civilian casualty rates, the humanitarian aid, the fact that over 1.5 million Arabs of which the majority are Muslim, live in Israel) that your narrative can’t explain and hyperfocus on things that went wrong to create a picture of how bad Israel is.
The thing I quoted is the very thing you asked for in the paragraph before that one.
g. The same way someone who wants to prove that pink flying unicorns exist (Israel being fascist) can’t put the burden of proof on someone asking for evidence: You are the one making the claim, thus you have to prove it.
But alright. Why is Israel not fascist? Democratic governance and elections with multiple parties, independent judiciary, freedom of speech and press, protection of minority rights, civilian control of the military, pluralistic society, massively helps the civilians of a region which attacks them non-stop, religious foundation.
Can you provide the quotes from the Israeli government that led to this quote: “ far right government who is openly trying to increase its lebensraum by ethnically cleansing a population of subhumans that don't deserve to live on their own lands because they don't have the right lineage and the right religion, “?
Sounds again like a lot of logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques instead of neutrally re-phrasing Israel’s policy. Loaded language (Lebensraum, subhumans), straw man (ignoring the complex and contentious issues, framing them in the way you did does not reflect the position of the Israeli government), appeal to motive (“don’t have the right lineage…” implies motive without evidence or substantiating the claim), hasty generalization (as many times you are ignoring the reality of diverse opinion within Israel, the parties, the government, etc.) as well as guilt by association (Associate Israel to Nazis).
Yes, Smotrich is a self-described fascist. And how many ministers are there in the government that are not? As I said, you tilt reality till it fits your story.
And what about these AI tools? Saying that the use of these programs would mean more collateral is not the same as saying that the government wants to kill as many civilians as possible. Don’t you understand the difference?
I hope you see the flaw in your logic. Because if that AI tool was actually used and we talk about 40k Hamas officials at an STC casualty rate of 1:20 we would have over 800k dead. Which we obviously don’t. You are so focused on finding any mistake or bad practice to reason your way through this, without realizing that even if that AI was used a hundred times, the IDF must have made up for it at other angles to come out with a rate of 1:1,5.
Again: Having by far the least STC casualty rate out of all comparable conflicts directly kills your claim.
So the fallacies involved are: Hasty generalization (entire government wants to kill as many Palestinians a possible), straw man (oversimplification of policy or thought and ignoring complexities), appeal to emotion (it invokes fear and moral outrage without providing evidence), begging the question (the statement presumes the conclusion within the premise as it starts with the assumption that the government is willing to kill as many Palestinians as it can and then uses that assumption to argue that anyone who thinks otherwise is inconceivable), false dichotomy (no other options are available except believing the notion or not knowing all the facts), ad hominem (the notion attacks the credibility of those who disagree as they are either immoral or uninformed).
h. You still didn’t quote anyone that justified “killing a bunch of civilians” with “have western values". Can you please do?

Yes, you were lying about what I said. Again. And no, I am not stalling. I simply won’t let you all twist your way out of unfounded accusations and loaded language that can be proven as displaying lies. From now on there is someone on this forum who will people hold accountable when they make accusations of genocide, deliberate targeting of civilians by Israel or a forced famine if they aren’t backing up their claims with numbers and facts.

My point was about you falsely accusing me of justifying “killing a bunch of civilians” with “have western values"?.
I never did that, as I explained. As I said, I simply pointed out that the views of the protestors need to be debunked. You are again, straw maning, attributing (hidden) motives and generating a supposed causal connection that simply is not there.

Since when are misogyny, homophobia or mass murder considered Western Values? Again, the same rhetorical tools to create an argument based on fallacies.

You lied…
about Israel having a constitution without a correction, despite me pointing it out several times
me thinking it was good to kill Palestinians
me justifying killing a bunch of civilians with having Western values
me being an Islamophobe
me being a racist
perhaps about JimmiC… so far you still haven’t posted evidence

You never believe people that have a disagreement with you, don’t you? And I am dishonest in all of my replies? Very lucky coincidences.

Your absolutely illogical spree of attributing motifs does not end, even when the people that you directly accuse tell you that this is not what is happening. No words for such a line of argumentation.

j. Yes, a lot of people in Sweden speaking Swedish is a generalization. A factual generalization, as I said in my last post. Contrary to this factual generalization yours was implying judgment. That is the difference. I could have also said that a lot of people in Sweden speaking Swedish is a fact, that thus your comparison is bogus and all the following criticisms of your comparison would still hold value, so I have no issue in doing so. Why are you so hyper focused on things that don’t even matter? The point was that you yourself used a non factual generalization. “ a lot of people in the West don't like islam very much”

Your rhetorical tactics know no bounds. The point is not IF you judge people for being islamophobic. The point is that you MAKE assumptions about a large group of people without evidence. Your statement that “a lot of Westerners” don’t like Islam very much assumes attitudes and opinions of a large and diverse group of people.
With the follow up you equate Islamophobia with seeing Islam as a threat. This is simply intellectually appalling.
No, I was not hoping you would forget.
Your words: “That sounds coherent so far, now let's imagine that I'm rightwing and I've never thought in a systemic fashion in my entire life, as is the case of almost every single rightwinger. “
So why should I not assume that people who criticize Israel necessarily have to be right-wing or insane when in your “development” you yourself wrote before: “That's an insane view, and I don't mean it rhetorically, I mean I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized.”
So your point is that you are either insane or that there is another reason. Then you go on to talk about “a lot of people in the west” and conclude with right-wingers seeing Muslims as a threat and thus no one cares about killed Palestinians. That is your theory. Your words.
Media being biased towards Israel? Have you seen any Western news lately? How often they had to retract false news about Israel while already having dealt the propaganda damage? That has got to be the joke of the century.

No, you are applying simplistic motives to these right-wingers. You are generalizing them. It is YOU who is doing this in YOUR theory without any evidence.

You didn’t address the main point: Why aren’t any Muslim countries letting Palestinian refugees in like they did in the past? You simply say you don't care. It seems you are not thinking about unsettling things in regards to your world view, like when people directly tell you that your theory is not valid.

I am not for ethnically cleansing Palestine. I simply gave reasons as to why no Muslim countries are taking in Palestinians. Seriously. These deliberate straw men and misunderstandings are insane.
And I think it is absolutely fine to give Palestinians land. I never said otherwise. Once they are able to not throw bombs, make suicide attacks or attack Israel on any possible occassion and they put all terrorists behind bars themselves, yes, give them their country.
The funny thing is that I never was a friend of the idea of an Israeli state in the Middle East. The idea of Jewish Farmers building a state on Arab land in the Middle east is a stupid idea to begin with.
But now that it is there, we have to face the reality. If we let Palestinians create a state how they want it, around 10x the amount of people that have been displaced in the Nakba will be displaced then.
Many states are founded on foolishness, injustices or bad ideas but that does not mean that the people who have been born there and living there for decades should suffer because of it, the same way Palestinians shouldn’t suffer as well which they do under occupation, humiliation, being dispossessed or living in exile. Thus, something has to be done about this original misconception. It is a matter of principle. If Jews born in Manhattan have a right to a state in Palestine, then Palestinians born in Jerusalem have a right to a state in Palestine.
I gave you ideas on how I would try to implement it which you simply swept away and never presented an alternative.

Now just a quick summary:
You try to spin a story in 6174 of how insane it would be to not think that Israel is a government which “would kill as many Palestinians as they think they can get away with”. Continuing that even when evidence comes in that this government is “killing a bunch of civilians” (which of course happens in all wars for various reasons I pointed out many times) “none of the people on forums' positions ever budge”. You then attribute the most possible motive as to why there is no budging, namely “ sure Israel does a few war crimes from time to time but they "have western values" so they're not a problem”. You so far acknoledged only two other reasonings (being insane or having complex, personal reasons... whatever that means).You so far didn't acknowledge the one I present: A position based on numbers and facts.
You conclude that “That's an insane view” and with “ I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized”.
I fully agree. If that was the case. But it isn’t as there are other reasons. But you ignore all these other reasons and spin a story on top because “Luckily I don't think anyone truly believes this, really, I have an alternative theory”.
This time you attribute the motif to a “lot of people in the West”. Namely, that they are scared of Islam. You further argue that this irrational fear of Islam (as “ islam isn't actually a threat”) leads people to actually side with Israel.
After I asked for a follow-up, you made clear that you think that this explanation is “the most simple one”.
But if it is so simple, why are you the only one who came up with it? Why is everyone else arguing with facts, numbers and arguments that don’t have anything to do with Islamophobia?
You even acknowledge that “ there are subsets of people who support Israel for complex, personal reasons, that's not in dispute”.
But in the end you are the arbiter to impose judgment. You are the one who can check if your fallacious theory (see all the fallacies I pointed out above) holds true. Because even though I (nor anyone else since I have been here IIRC) did not make one Islamophobic remark in this entire thread and even though I told you several times that I am not an Islamophobe, you still apply your theory to me. All I did was argue based on numbers, data and facts that have nothing to do with Islam. You also never seemed to think differently anyway, as you started with your accusation in your very first reply to me. Hence, your theory is a self-fulfilling prophecy on which only you are able to say who is or is not an Islamophobe. But I won’t let myself get called one. Not by you or anyone else.

Followed by some anecdotes of my “Islamophobic life”.
In my first company, 33% of my employees are Muslim. My second company has 42% Muslims. In 2019 I volunteered to help a Syrian Muslim refugee who was in first grade with school and do some outer-school care and support. This got me so close to the family that I have been invited to all birthdays, Eid al-Fitr, to his siblings first day of school and many other events since then. After years of me helping them out with visits to authorities and other bureaucratic BS they called me a member of their family.

3.
In summary, your evidence free insinuations and insults are massively displaced and truly hurtful.
I ask one last time that you please take these insults back and apologize or provide evidence that I am an Islamophobe.
Further, please take back that you called me a racist (you can keep the weirdo, clown, right-winger and other things you threw at me… I don’t really care about those).

On August 28 2024 14:35 PremoBeats wrote:
Do you also have a theory why other Muslims don’t give a crap why these exact Muslims are killed? Because that is something your golden theory can’t explain.
Why aren’t Jordan and Egypt taking them? Why did Egypt build an even larger border wall? Probably because they are forced to by Israel, right? Or is it because if refugees can’t leave Gaza, the following humanitarian crisis can be simply blamed on Israel? But certainly not because Palestinians wherever they found refuge stirred up trouble, right?
300k were expelled from the Kuwaiti government in 1991 (18% of Kuwait’s population) because the government saw the majority of Palestinians complicit in the Iraqi occupation of their country.
What about Jordan? There, the Palestinians groups openly called for the overthrow of Jordan’s monarchy and the PLO used their armies stationed on Jordanian soil to sow chaos. They robbed Jordanians to “collect funds” for their war against Israel. All of this, as well as the hijacking of planes and hostage situations in Jordan led the Jordanian military to war against the PLO themselves, which led to the Palestinians being driven out of the country, not before Black September assassinated the Jordanian Prime minister. But where did the PLO move then?
Correct, Lebanon, which was completely destabilized and where the PLO attempted their next coup. 4 years after the Palestinians were expelled from Jordan, Lebanon saw itself in one of the most bloody and chaotic civil wars in Middle Eastern history.
I already mentioned Sinai and its history with Muslim extremists in another post.
So, yeah… how does your theory fit in with non-Westerners who on top share the same faith? Why is no one letting Palestinians in?

On August 28 2024 14:35 PremoBeats wrote:
And I think it is absolutely fine to give Palestinians land. I never said otherwise. Once they are able to not throw bombs, make suicide attacks or attack Israel on any possible occassion and they put all terrorists behind bars themselves, yes, give them their country.

On August 28 2024 18:53 Gahlo wrote:

1. It's 20:1, and 1.5:1 is absolute horseshit and you know it.
2. Doesn't matter, because they are. The UN estimates that 90% of Gazans have been displaced.
3. Then should I not care that Hamas commited 10/7 because Gaza has been oppressed by Isreal? For the intelligence powerhouse they're supposed to be in the region, maybe they should be hitting buildings that their targets had been using this century. Oh wait, I wonder if this is applicable to other theaters.
4+5. How Israel has acted with settlements that haven't been officially sanctioned proves that this is irrrelevant
6. What are you even talking about?

It's a mix of both, and Isreal's been known to wait until a supposed Hamas member goes home before blowing them up shows that they don't really care. But sure, let's play "they made me kill those civilians" again.

So Israel fucking around with aid is fine because Hamas is doing it? Good to know you think Israel is acting like a terror organization, I'm glad we can agree on something. As an occupying force it is Isreal's duty to provide aid for those it's occupying. Maybe there wouldn't be such a high demand for "black market goods" such as a carton of egg costing $73.80 in North Gaza if Israel wasn't deliberately starving them, or the shrinking "humanitarian zone" that is acutely lacking resources that totally isn't a concentration camp.

On August 28 2024 21:11 PremoBeats wrote:

@pmp10: Interesting to see that both sides agree on the casualties. 9/9, so another 0% civilian casualty operation.

@Jock: Ah, come on.. you are better than that

On August 28 2024 20:33 Nebuchad wrote:


To be honest I'm not very satisfied with my last answer to you. When you started going off about how the Palestinians are evil rabble rousers wherever they go, you were providing a glimpse of the real motives that you have in this conversation, which is all I want from you really. Instead of the negative reaction I had, I should have prompted you to continue in that direction. But I guess I was a little riled up by all the bullshit you said before that, and I got carried away. I apologize.

On this you might not be dishonest, I understand that it's hard for someone to view themselves as bigoted, so you might think that the things you're saying are just unbiased and objectively fine. This is different to the rest of your defense of Israel that is just straight up denial of data and facts. So it's worth going through a few of these.



This entire development is rooted in an islamophobic worldview.
First, you're using "Jordan" and "Egypt" interchangeably with "muslims". Muslims are individuals, not governments. This is a deeply bigoted way of talking about a group of people. You wouldn't have any trouble figuring out the antisemitism of a statement like "Jews really love to segregate the West Bank", but because you don't feel the same attachment toward muslims, you're ready to reduce them to the actions of two governments. That speaks to your mindset, or alternatively that speaks to the mindset of the person who you copied this wall of text from, cause that definitely seems written by an Israeli and from what I've gathered, you're not one.

Second, and more importantly, you're talking about how Palestinians behaved in other countries. There is only one logical reason to bring this up, and it's to invoke the fact that they're trouble, that there is a Palestinian Question that needs to be answered. In an unbiased perspective, people don't deserve to be ethnically cleansed from a country because some other people of the same origin are misbehaving in another country - besides, misbehaving in an autocratic country is good, you're making me like them more. This is just used to create the perception that Palestinians are evil and we have to deal with them, and you find that convincing because you already agree with it because of your islamophobia. I don't share your islamophobia, neither would the unbiased observer, so neither of us find it very convincing.

Third, the narrative already takes it for granted that we're ethnically cleansing Palestine. If we weren't doing that, why would you need Egypt or Jordan to take in refugees? They're refugees from something, and that something is Israel chasing them out. So when you later deny that you're in favor of ethnically cleansing Palestine, that's not what we read in this paragraph. You even do some additional defense with "settling and ethnic cleansing are not the same", which they obviously are in this context. In order to settle lands that are already inhabited, you need to remove the people who live there, this isn't Israelis immigrating in Palestine this is Israelis taking palestinian land.

Another viewpoint of yours that is clearly islamophobic is your impression of western values. In the West we're gay friendly and feminists, and the muslims don't have western values, they are homophobes and misogynists, and as such they are incompatible with the West. This is straight up a racist worldview that is easily belied by a cursory look at reality: there are plenty of people in the West who are homophobes and misogynists, so clearly being a homophobe or a misogynist isn't incompatible with The West. And there are muslims who aren't homophobes and misogynists, obviously. Muslims are generally people, they'll behave like people do, in terms of behaviors and beliefs. Hard to imagine, I know.

You also talked about Palestywood before, which by itself is very sus.

From the new post, a further example of islamophobia:



Demanding acceptance of Israel's ethnic cleansing before being granted a state, fully aware (I'm assuming) of the fact that at this point there won't be a need for a palestinian state because Netanyahu will have achieved its goal of Greater Israel.

I was not swayed that you can't be islamophobic by the fact that you employ muslims. I am also convinced that people can be misogynists even if they are straight and have a wife, and really if you think about it half of their lineage is women! Learning that you are a boss was something that made me chuckle though, it explains why you have so much time to answer but at the same time so much reluctance to do any kind of work at all.

The rest of the post is less interesting, but I suppose I'll have to continue to address it otherwise you'll claim some sort of victory because I haven't (and since I imagine you answer my post line by line, there's a decent chance that you already have and you now have to delete that, which I find enjoyment in).

Since you're really into describing fallacious ways of arguing, the one that you've been using in this conversation is called sealioning, which is "a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter." Usually Wikipedia definitions don't match reality this well, so thanks for being textbook I guess. "How exactly did Ben N. incite violence? How did he call for the asssassination?" => I provided an article on this and quoted it in the thread, you moron. You even go further than that and admit that you have zero interest in the answers to the question you asked: "(I won’t look at a whole article and search for an answer… it is on you to support the point/accusation you made)" When I link an article I am supporting the accusation I'm making. Your unwillingness to look at the answers is not equivalent to the answers not being there. It is however a very obvious sign that you couldn't care less about the questions, and that they're just a rhetorical tactic.

I also want to take the time to mock you once again for thinking that "a lot of people in Sweden speak swedish" is a generalization, because I'm petty.

What I gather is that you're not willing to call anyone a fascist because it doesn't suit your argument. I can't agree with this kind of nonsense. Fascism is an ideology, it can be described with terms. "A far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, egalitarianism, liberalism, socialism, and Marxism"

As you can see, not all of that applies to Israel, it is currently a democracy. But you don't need to live in, or even rule, a fascist system to deserve to be called a fascist, obviously, otherwise fascism couldn't ever occur. In terms of beliefs we have a perfect fit. Far right beliefs / opposition to anarchism-liberalism-marxism-good things check, ultranationalist check, forcible suppression of opposition let's go with half-check (there is repression of anti-war protests in Israel but it's on a similar scale to what happens in the US), belief in a natural social hierarchy check (obviously the Jews are superior to Arabs and deserve their lands), subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race massive check (the Hannibal doctrine is sufficient for this one), and strong regimentation of society and the economy check (the Apartheid of Palestinians). In my book and in the book of most sincere people, this is way more than needed.

Of course I have put forward multiple times this explanation of why Israel is fascist, and I see that you have now finally come up with an answer: "Why is Israel not fascist? Democratic governance and elections with multiple parties, independent judiciary, freedom of speech and press, protection of minority rights, civilian control of the military, pluralistic society, massively helps the civilians of a region which attacks them non-stop, religious foundation." Thank you for doing that. So we can see these two sets of facts interacting with each other, Israel being on one side pretty good for the people who live in Israel (your narrative), and on the other pretty bad for the people who live in Palestine (my narrative). That makes a lot of sense for fascism, actually. The group that is viewed as superior gets to live a decent life, enjoys its status, and the group that is viewed as inferior gets to be ethnically cleansed and segregated like the subhumans they are. You added "massively helping the people who attack them non-stop" but of course that's just your dishonesty talking, as the group in question wouldn't need help at all if it wasn't living under conditions imposed by Israel, and the help that Israel is sending is far from massive.

As already explained, I found the assertion that N Senior left Israel because it's not fascist enough in Sylvain Cypel's book, but that's in french. If you're really interested in this (but you aren't), I'm fairly certain that you will find the same assertion in Medof, Rafael (2002). Militant Zionism in America: The Rise and Impact of the Jabotinsky Movement in the United States, 1926–1948. All of that has been said already. I trust that Cypel is correct but if you don't and you want to read more about those people, you can easily do it. The only thing stopping you is your complete lack of interest for the answers you're demanding.

It is not unlikely that reformed zionists would have refrained from calling themselves fascists at a time where fascists were persecuting and genociding Jews, that makes a decent amount of sense to me. I personnally subscribe to Fanon's view that fascism is mainly just colonialism being applied to white people, which they now find horrifying but they were fine with when it was done to subhumans for centuries. Jabotinsky had criticisms of Mussolini from what I've read, but I have no doubt he would self-describe as a colonialist, and would openly argue against other zionists because even though they were all engaged in this colonial project, they weren't sufficiently ready for violence necessary for the subjugation of the colonized people. Mussolini applauded him for his ideology. The only ideological differences that I can see between the two are cosmetic, unless you're ready to say that fascism can only be done toward humans so it can't be done to Palestinians, but I don't think you are.

As you saw in the articles I provided, "I" don't attribute motives to Netanyahu for propping up Hamas, the media that reported on it does. I agree with the media on this because it makes logical sense. The issue that you have is of course that you can't come up with another good reason for Netanyahu to prop up Hamas other than because he wants Palestinians divided so that they can't have a state, but also you can't admit the media is obviously right about why he did this because it is much more important to you to say that Israel doesn't have evil motives than it is to make logical sense and fit the data that you have from the real world.

"I can be for a Jewish state and against settlements." Indeed! But you're not just for a jewish state, you're full on supporting this current iteration and its brand of zionism. This brand of zionism includes, and will always include, settlements. Therefore my counterargument works. You didn't have to say you support the current government because you've been doing it in the thread for weeks now, and you're literally using dishonest debate tactics to avoid having to accept a single criticism directed at Netanyahu on an ideological level. Actions speak louder than words.

""complex and subject to interpretation" intention could be that the money went to local governments. Gazan authorities. So perhaps humanitarian aid? Construction material for schools? Is that such an implausible idea, looking at the vast amounts of humanitarian aid that Israel is sending to Gaza every year and the quote I posted that follows from your own source?"

That is true, someone could believe that. However we know that Israel doesn't believe that, since they're carefully monitoring the actual humanitarian aid and the actual materials that come into Gaza because they're "very afraid that it might be used by Hamas". It can't be your honest motive to let bags of qatari money go into Gaza with no supervision that you think they're going to be used for humanitarian aid and schools when you're literally blocking and/or carefully managing the actual humanitarian aid and materials for schools that come into Gaza in the same period. So this doesn't work as a justification for what Netanyahu did. Anything else?

As a sidenote, what you described here is not a complex intention at all, it's just helping Palestinians. It doesn't work as an intention that Israel can have, but it's very simple. So clearly when you said "complex intention" in the last post you didn't really know what you were going to say, you just thought it sounded cool.

This also reminds me that in the last post you provided some other explanations possible for what Israel is doing and you're yet to explain why the reasons why I find them silly are not satisfactory to you.

"Yes, that is my point. The only things you care about are the ones that feed into your thinking."

...Yes. Everyone does that, lol. It's called building a narrative. That's not evil, that's just how thinking works. When you want to destroy a narrative, you can't just point to the existence of other facts, other facts will always exist. You need contradictory facts. It is not contradictory to the claim that Netanyahu propped up Hamas in order to keep Palestine divided to say that Israel also did some humanitarian things for Gaza (far less than you're representing), it's just tangential. As such, I don't care. You're saying that I'm leaving them because I can't explain them, but that's just your dishonesty kicking in. One I have explained (the casualty rate, my answer to which you haven't addressed at all, you've just breezed past it and dishonestly pretended that I couldn't give an answer to it). Others I'm leaving out because I don't have to explain them: they don't counter my narrative, so they're not relevant.

"hyperfocus on things that went wrong" is a very interesting sentence to let slip in there. So far you've been critical of literally everything I have advanced except for settlements, and settlements aren't something that "went wrong", Netanyahu is openly supporting them and, if we come back to the change of laws in 2017 that you refuse to read about, that's one of the things that he put in there: that "the state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation". So what are those things that went wrong, and why did you defend them before if you now admit that they went wrong?

And what about these AI tools? Saying that the use of these programs would mean more collateral is not the same as saying that the government wants to kill as many civilians as possible. Don’t you understand the difference?

What number of civilians would you deem unacceptable for the killing of an unimportant member of Hamas, since 20 is not enough for you? Again you're unwilling to tell us how much blood you would be satisfied with.

I hope you see the flaw in your logic. Because if that AI tool was actually used and we talk about 40k Hamas officials at an STC casualty rate of 1:20 we would have over 800k dead.

...No we wouldn't, lol, because Israel didn't kill 40k Hamas officials, and being allowed to kill 20 civilians for every minor target doesn't mean you're going to kill 20 civilians every time you kill a minor target, sometimes there won't be 20 civilians around and you'll kill less. "I hope you see the flaw in your logic" followed by the most illogical math I've seen all year, you couldn't make this up. Also what is this demonstration even supposed to prove?

First, you're using "Jordan" and "Egypt" interchangeably with "muslims". Muslims are individuals, not governments. This is a deeply bigoted way of talking about a group of people. You wouldn't have any trouble figuring out the antisemitism of a statement like "Jews really love to segregate the West Bank", but because you don't feel the same attachment toward muslims, you're ready to reduce them to the actions of two governments. That speaks to your mindset, or alternatively that speaks to the mindset of the person who you copied this wall of text from, cause that definitely seems written by an Israeli and from what I've gathered, you're not one.

Second, and more importantly, you're talking about how Palestinians behaved in other countries. There is only one logical reason to bring this up, and it's to invoke the fact that they're trouble, that there is a Palestinian Question that needs to be answered. In an unbiased perspective, people don't deserve to be ethnically cleansed from a country because some other people of the same origin are misbehaving in another country - besides, misbehaving in an autocratic country is good, you're making me like them more. This is just used to create the perception that Palestinians are evil and we have to deal with them, and you find that convincing because you already agree with it because of your islamophobia. I don't share your islamophobia, neither would the unbiased observer, so neither of us find it very convincing.

Third, the narrative already takes it for granted that we're ethnically cleansing Palestine. If we weren't doing that, why would you need Egypt or Jordan to take in refugees? They're refugees from something, and that something is Israel chasing them out. So when you later deny that you're in favor of ethnically cleansing Palestine, that's not what we read in this paragraph. You even do some additional defense with "settling and ethnic cleansing are not the same", which they obviously are in this context. In order to settle lands that are already inhabited, you need to remove the people who live there, this isn't Israelis immigrating in Palestine this is Israelis taking palestinian land.

Another viewpoint of yours that is clearly islamophobic is your impression of western values. In the West we're gay friendly and feminists, and the muslims don't have western values, they are homophobes and misogynists, and as such they are incompatible with the West. This is straight up a racist worldview that is easily belied by a cursory look at reality: there are plenty of people in the West who are homophobes and misogynists, so clearly being a homophobe or a misogynist isn't incompatible with The West. And there are muslims who aren't homophobes and misogynists, obviously. Muslims are generally people, they'll behave like people do, in terms of behaviors and beliefs. Hard to imagine, I know.

Since you're really into describing fallacious ways of arguing, the one that you've been using in this conversation is called sealioning, which is "a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter."

On August 28 2024 21:32 Jockmcplop wrote:


Fantastic.
Now we know Israel are capable of zero civilian casualty operations, can we agree that the tens of thousands of dead were unnecessary?

And for what its worth, I would genuinely call Israeli Settlers terrorists. They are terrorists. We just give them a different name because... Well I think we all know why.

On August 28 2024 22:51 Gahlo wrote:

1. Are we talking about the "Hamas officials" of the Gaza Ministry of Health that has, once again, been proven to be more accurate in tallying deaths and classifying them during previous conflicts than Israel? Does the fact that they're labeled as "Hamas" while working in areas with active targeting perchance make their work harder? Are they not supposed to do that work because it's not in some abandoned factory or 1-2 story building somewhere?
2. If you displace for "security measures", build a settlement while the people are forced away, and bar access when there's a chance for them to return based on ethnic lines then yes, it's ethnic cleansing.
3. You can keep repeating it, won't make it true.
4/5. https://x.com/EpshtainItay/status/1735752634353451234 However when I talk of settlements I'm talking about all of them, not just those created in this chapter of the Israel/Palestine conflict.
6. We're way past a proportional response. "They could be doing worse" isn't an adequate defense

No, but you know what's funny? Every people backing the Gazans stuck in this humanitarian crisis has to constantly denounce Hamas for anything and everything shitty that they do, but I don't see the same level of scrutiny. I often see things like "did I ever way it was fine?" but rarely do I see "This is not okay" from anti-Gazans.

Not enough food has been delivered, that's how much. Aid being held up by protests not actively cleared, or just held up for trumped up reasons have been reported. Aid foundations are constantly complaining that they aren't able to get their goods in because they are being blocked. If they can't even supply the "humanitarian zone" then there's no way they're properly handling the situation.

On September 01 2024 17:05 PremoBeats wrote:
[long-ass quote]

On August 28 2024 19:25 DaveExecutor wrote:
Can someone tell me what might be the reason that Israel was able to make peace with multiple Arab countries but cannot with Palestinians?

I am not super informed about the situation. As I understand the source of their conflict was same or very similar. And Israel was willing to give up captured territories and remove their settlements.
Is there some special value to Gaza or West Bank?

On September 03 2024 19:15 DaveExecutor wrote:
Thanks for the answer! I really appreciate it! I started to believe nobody would bother because it’s much more interesting who is more horrible in the current situation.

But I got the feeling you conveniently put all the blame on Israel.
I accept that they are not willing to give up territories anymore. But that’s not unique to Israel. I believe no country in the world would be willing to simply abandon territory that they have invested in for decades. Unless they cannot keep it anymore or the internartional politics force them.

On September 03 2024 22:06 DaveExecutor wrote:
Yeah, you are right. I got my answer.
As I thought about it more I expected there was a period when both parties extended an olive branch. And either Israel or Palestine made some blunder and delayed the peace talks too much. Eventually a party or goverment change made it impossible for a long time.

But simply the current status quo is whatever they can currently uphold.

I wasn’t looking for blame game or who started it. I just had thought there would have been some unique event that prevented Palestine and Israel make peace with each other.
Sounded much more interesting for me than who made the latest crime against humanity..

On September 07 2024 16:54 PremoBeats wrote:
@Nebuchad
Not at all a Palestinian question, as you imply a non sequitur fallacy. It does not necessarily follow that Palestine needs to be ethnically cleansed from Israel’s POV simply because they have issues with the Palestinians.
Further: Observing and mentioning that there are different reasons for the gender pay gap other than discrimination, does not mean that you support the pay gap or that you downplay that discrimination plays a part. One simply observes and mentions.
Translated from this analogy: Observing and mentioning that there are reasons why other nations have reservations about letting Palestinians seek refuge in their countries is not the same as invoking a Palestinian question.
It was simply a way to show that these reasons reasons could give us a hint why peace with Israel is so hard to maintain from the Palestinian side. That further does not mean that there are not also reasons present that can be put on Israel. It was simply an observation and explanation.

It is funny to notice how you go on to “put thoughts in my head”. I already made clear in this very thread what a possible conclusion is (Israel clearing settlements similar to 2005, demilitarization, re-education, supervision and when Palestinians are able to accept Israel as a state, nothing speaks against the state of Palestine), but it probably is not what you are implying my "conclusion" is in your eyes.

Your fallacious theory was that most Westerners don’t support Israel/don’t help Palestinians because of the absurd conclusions and insinuations you reached in 6174. I simply presented non-Westerners (even people who share the same faith, aka Muslims) who do the same, to show that there can be multiple reasons for their acting (in this case, reservations because the Palestinians before tried to overthrow the present governments). That is all. Nothing more to it. Again: 6174 is a hot mess of unfounded insinuations and fallacious reasoning that to me also seems borderline-paranoid.

And no, I did not “walk back” my “Western value stuff” as I never wrote what you accuse me of. That is the issue. You are fighting windmills in your head again and now think that I changed my opinion… I never had the opinion you accuse me of to begin with though.
From talking to many of them in the city I lived in, the ignorance of the protestors was/is my issue from the start, thus I used the word “debunk”. There are conflicts that are far worse out there, but they chose to protest the one where the “offender” from their POV is doing more than most other factions in conflicts to prevent casualties. I made this point several times and your attempts to ignore it and spin the story according to your own perception won’t work. I said from the start that “the debunking in the West nowadays mostly should be directed at all the clueless Free Palestine supporters that make comparisons to an Apartheid state, defend the barbaric actions of terrorists and cherish a way of life that is utterly incompatible with Western values.” My issue is their ignorance and lack of knowledge surrounding this conflict. They are not aware that women are not allowed to walk around without a male guardian when they are unmarried. They are not aware of the inequality in regards to inheritance or domestic violence between the sexes. They are not aware that being gay or lesbian is criminalized and might get you even beheaded.
Thus I never said that they protest to “cherish the way the Palestinians live” like you try to insinuate. It is again you misrepresenting a notion/making a statement that never happened to have an easier way to attack it (straw man).
I think it would be good to educate the queers for Palestine that they will probably be murdered when they go there. Or to speak about Apartheid and the massive differences to South Africe. Or to talk about “mass murder” as you said and educate them about the real numbers from the ground, which your side hardly ever does as this thread shows. You all are spinning a story or presenting horrible incidents which happen - I don’t deny them -, but are not representative of the bigger picture. And the numbers show this.

“You were telling me that Israel could want Palestinians out not because they want to ethnically cleanse Palestine but because they're very afraid of Palestinians and it's a safety concern”
Can you give the exact quote? This sounds like a misrepresentation, but perhaps I was not making myself clear enough.

About Netanyahu and the Qatari money: The Qatari money argument came up in... 2018? A lot can change in 6 years, especially after October 7th, which of course would be a reason to realize that your past decision wasn’t so clever and from now on goods going there need to be monitored more strictly. I don’t see an issue here. Counter question: If humanitarian aid and helping civilian Gazans is of no concern to Israel why are there more than 1000 humanitarian trucks per week entering Gaza? Why have there been 18.000 tons of medical supplies entering Gaza from October till March?
And do you accept that since the start of the war, Israel has only denied entry to less than 2% of the trucks? That water pipes from Israel which provide hundreds of thousands of Gazans with water were damaged by Hamas and are repaired by Israel?

Where did I say it was ok for an AI to believe that 20 civilian deaths are acceptable? Can you quote me? Again, this sounds like a misrepresentation, but it could also be that I wasn’t making myself clear.


So as you presented 3 key things, that are important to you, I will do the same:

- Civilian casualties
Do you accept that the soldier-to-civilian casualty rates are very low in comparison to other conflict zones with similar metrics? The follow-ups of course will be the following (but we can’t go at them 1 by 1, if you prefer… then you can only answer the former):
That even though the metrics are similar, Israel faces the immense difficult situation of having to fight against Hamas’ tactic of using human shields and civilian infrastructure? That even though the numbers are so low after acknowledging this, the numbers have not been controlled for natural deaths? That there have been occasions where the deaths of women and children (which is a highly emotional topic) outnumber the total deaths on given days, which is impossible? That there are over 10k unregistered deaths meaning that deaths could have been counted double on thousands of occasions?
Do you accept all these facts that lead to the 1:1,5 STC casualty rate, which is immensely low in comparison?
- Humanitarian aid
Do you accept that 50% more food than than what is usually seen as a standard in crises has entered Gaza? Which in turn means that the issue is not the providing side (Israel) but the distribution side (health organizations and Hamas)? Or that Hamas has been accused by Palestinians to loot, steal and resell on the black market with higher prices?
- Your unfounded accusation(s)
Your words about me: “muslims don't have western values, they are homophobes and misogynists, and as such they are incompatible with the West”
Do you accept that you suggested that I believe all Muslims are homophobes and misogynists, while I never said anything of the sort? I never generalized the actions or policies present in Palestine to all Muslims or imply that all Muslims share these views. So either accept your misrepresentation or show proof that I “believe all Muslims are homophobes and misogynists”.

For all I care, we can focus on your and my 3 points and leave the rest away.

On September 07 2024 21:30 Nebuchad wrote:


Yeah I don't really know how to answer some of this because there's no internal coherence in the post. Both on talking about the Palestinian question and on talking about western values, you start with the accusation that I misrepresent what you say, and then you go on to say the thing again. I have no doubt that you do this because you're dishonest obviously but it makes it difficult to know how to answer.

I guess I can just quote the wiki on the Jewish Question...? "The Jewish question was a wide-ranging debate in 19th- and 20th-century Europe that pertained to the appropriate status and treatment of Jews. The debate, which was similar to other "national questions", dealt with the civil, legal, national, and political status of Jews as a minority within society, particularly in Europe during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries."

See, we're not saying that the Jews should be exterminated. We're just making some observations about how they cause problems. If you're thinking that we intend to do something about those problems, that's on you mate, your mind is twisted like that. The part about killing them, the "Final solution to the Jewish question", comes long after the question is first asked, once you have enough power in society that you don't need to shield your beliefs behind political correctness anymore. If anything you're even clearer than these people were because you can't help yourself and you mention reeducation and supervision of Palestinians in the middle of your post where you're "not talking about a palestinian question". I think there might be something wrong with me, truly, because I find the cowardice even more disgusting than the actual support for the policies.

It's obviously the same type of islamophobic worldview that leads you to believe that protesters are ignorant. The logic that you're using functions like this:

- These protesters are against the mass murder of Palestinians.
- Palestinians are evil.
- If the protesters knew that Palestinians are evil, they wouldn't be protesting. I need to educate them on what's wrong with Palestinians.

Now as you might have noticed if you had actually talked to protesters in real life, when you bring up that being gay or lesbian is criminalized and might even get you beheaded in Muslimistan, those protesters don't go "Holy shit! I didn't know that, guess I agree with you that they should be mass murdered now." This would lead an honest person to conclude that actually the diagnosis is wrong, and it's not the lack of knowledge on the far right muslim world that is causing them to protest. It's just that, being less bigoted than you, they don't accept that Palestinians are evil. That's all there is to it.

Muhuh I didn't say that Palestinians are evil, you will answer, pathetically. You did, though. You can't jump from "mass murder is bad" to "let's look at whether the Palestinians have good values" without the stepping stone "Palestinians are evil". This is the reason why you and the protesters don't agree. You have the moral clarity to know that Palestinians deserve to be reeducated and dealt with (it's just an observation, we're not saying how we're dealing with them!!!). They do not.

"“You were telling me that Israel could want Palestinians out not because they want to ethnically cleanse Palestine but because they're very afraid of Palestinians and it's a safety concern”
Can you give the exact quote? This sounds like a misrepresentation, but perhaps I was not making myself clear enough."

Sure here's the exact quote. Talking about why Israel is behaving in the way it is towards Palestinians, you offered some alternate reasons:

"- Focus on security and self-defense of the Israeli government, especially in response to continuous terrorist attacks as well as one larger scale incident.
- Looking at the soldier-to-civilian casualty ratio.
- Desire to maintain control over territories for strategic or historical reasons, without the intention to comment indiscriminate violence against civilians."

One of the three isn't a reason, you just added it because you think your argument looks stronger if there are three points, and you're only concerned with defending Israel, not with making sense. One is about religion which has somehow become a good reason to ethnically cleanse people now, I guess that's just your steadfast commitment to western values talking. And the third one is the one you're supposed to be discussing now (a reminder, Israel is supposed to be at the same time chasing the inhabitants of a place in order to settle it, but also very afraid of the people who live there, and that seems contradictory).

"About Netanyahu and the Qatari money: The Qatari money argument came up in... 2018? A lot can change in 6 years, especially after October 7th, which of course would be a reason to realize that your past decision wasn’t so clever and from now on goods going there need to be monitored more strictly. I don’t see an issue here."

Clearly you do see the issue here, otherwise you wouldn't have completely reworded what we were talking about in order to act like we were talking about something else. As a reminder, your claim was that Netanyahu could have been allowing qatari money into Gaza not because he wanted to prop up Hamas, but because he wanted to help provide humanitarian aid and construction material into Gaza. Are you now accepting that this can't have been his motivation to allow this qatari money into Gaza?

"Where did I say it was ok for an AI to believe that 20 civilian deaths are acceptable?"

Multiple times, it's one of the core points of your argument. You're continuously saying that Israel isn't killing enough people for you to be bothered. If we accept as true the claim that Israel is fighting a clean war, then it logically follows that the methods Israel is using are okay.
You're also refusing to answer how many deaths you wouldn't defend. You're saying that this number of deaths is very low and very acceptable, but you are unwilling to tell us what number of deaths wouldn't be low and acceptable. The more you refuse to answer this question, the more I get convinced that you know the death toll is going to be much higher, and you know that you'll also be defending this much higher death toll when it drops, so you don't want to give a number in case the number is reached later and it'll be harder to defend it if you have previously said that this would be a bad number.


You asked way more than three questions but that's only because your default debate tactic when you're defending an indefensible position is sealioning, I forgive you. Here are the questions to which my answer is "I couldn't care less":

"If humanitarian aid and helping civilian Gazans is of no concern to Israel why are there more than 1000 humanitarian trucks per week entering Gaza? Why have there been 18.000 tons of medical supplies entering Gaza from October till March?"
"That there have been occasions where the deaths of women and children (which is a highly emotional topic) outnumber the total deaths on given days, which is impossible? That there are over 10k unregistered deaths meaning that deaths could have been counted double on thousands of occasions?"


Here are the questions that I'm answering with substance:

Do you accept that the soldier-to-civilian casualty rates are very low in comparison to other conflict zones with similar metrics?

As I've said before and you've ignored to act like I'm not answering, no I do not accept it as true, the true casualty rate is in all likelihood much higher than what is reported, people are being classified as soldiers in loose ways so that this proportion looks less problematic, and it also wouldn't make any sense based on what we know of Israel's philosophy and methods of war. It also doesn't matter a whole lot to me as Israel's Lebensraum war is unjustified on principle alone, so any casualty rate that derives from it is unacceptable. I didn't need to look up how many civilians Putin killed before I decided that invading Ukraine was wrong.

That even though the metrics are similar, Israel faces the immense difficult situation of having to fight against Hamas’ tactic of using human shields and civilian infrastructure?

No that's just bullshit obviously. The function of human shields is to make it so that you're not shooting, because you don't want to kill humans. It's not to make you look bad once you've shot because you've killed humans. You're just using the word "human shield" as a word shield to shield Israelis from the fact that they're enthusiastically killing civilians.

Do you accept that 50% more food than than what is usually seen as a standard in crises has entered Gaza? Which in turn means that the issue is not the providing side (Israel) but the distribution side (health organizations and Hamas)? Or that Hamas has been accused by Palestinians to loot, steal and resell on the black market with higher prices?

No of course I don't accept that Israel is providing more food than "what is usually seen", lol, what kind of bullshit metric is that :D As for Hamas, they sound like a bad organization, possibly evil (clearly not as much as Netanyahu but quite evil!). Maybe we should make it so that there isn't a crisis, and that way Hamas wouldn't be able to profit from the crisis? Wonder what is causing the crisis, is it an earthquake? Tsunami?

"Do you accept that you suggested that I believe all Muslims are homophobes and misogynists, while I never said anything of the sort?"

Yes of course I accept that, I'm fine with it and I double down on it.

On September 09 2024 19:23 PremoBeats wrote:
How do you think any problem should be dealt with/discussed if one inherently assumes a possible and at the same time most extreme conclusion as a given?
Coming back to the pay gap: It can also be construed as a Male Question. And thus to eradicate the pay gap we will have to exterminate all men, according to your reasoning. We wouldn’t be able to discuss any tough issue this world faces, based on your hyper-slippery slope fallacy.

Your perceived description of my logic fails at “Palestinians are evil”, as I don’t believe it and never said so.
I also never jumped from “mass murder is bad" to "let's look at whether the Palestinians have good values" as these notions were not used to legitimize each other. Again, as you really don’t seem to get it:
Mass murder is bad, but casualties in a war (especially with such a low STC casualty rate compared to similar war zones that didn’t have human shields, non-controlled death numbers for natural deaths, as well as the vast amount of goods Israel proves and all the other things I mentioned multiple times) happen. That is all I am saying. I am neither saying that it is good, nor am I saying that Palestinians are evil, no matter how often you repeat it or try to put it in my mouth.

Further, I know that these protestors think they are protesting an evil Israel. I am aware of that. Hence I want to educate them on how their perception is wrong with statistics and facts.
I talked to protestors in real life. And they have these exact reactions when you tell them about the way of life in Palestine. There are even YT videos about this exact same phenomenon if you don’t believe me.

On September 09 2024 20:25 Nebuchad wrote:


I do not think there are any problems with a particular ethnicity, and as such I don't need a way of discussing these problems. If I believed that there was a problem with a particular group of humans based on their ethnicity, then what I would do is be racist against this ethnicity. I'm not going to treat this group like the rest of humans when this group of humans is problematic and the rest of humans is not, I'm not an idiot.

The gender pay gap can be construed as a male question if you're a bad faith actor trying to make a dishonest point, but in all other cases it can't be construed as a male question. It is connected to patriarchal hierarchies in society, not to identifying as male. You have never in your life thought that the gender pay gap was a male question, you're just saying that because it sounds convenient.

Further, I know that these protestors think they are protesting an evil Israel. I am aware of that. Hence I want to educate them on how their perception is wrong with statistics and facts.

But you're not using statistics and facts though. You're using a value judgement of Palestinians and their lack of western values. Run away from it as much as you want, the thing that you're attempting to do is to give them the moral clarity to understand the situation like you do.

Your accusation that I said Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestinians out of safety concerns

Lying (on purpose), the argument was that Israel could be settling the West Bank without having ethnic cleansing as an intention. You are pretending to get stuck on what we were talking about in order to not answer the question.

It literally is in the quote: That he could have changed his mind.

But your initial argument wasn't that he changed his mind, it was that he could have wanted to provide humanitarian aid and construction materials into Gaza. Do you accept that this doesn't work as a justification?

There also is no given number (absolutely or relatively) that makes any sense. What if 1 person more dies than what I say? Does the war become “inhuman” all of a sudden? What if Israel is way below an acceptable number that you propose? Is the war justified then? It doesn’t make sense, especially as we actually are able to observe how well Israel is doing in comparison to other regions.

"What if 1 person more dies than what I say", lol, then it would be unacceptable, that's what setting a limit for acceptability means. In my opinion this is just difficult to answer for you because there is no number of dead Palestinians that you wouldn't find acceptable. The logical follow-up of this is that the amount of casualties right now has no impact on what you believe when it comes to this conflict, you're just using it for rhetorical purposes.

Alright, so you think that the numbers that are most likely inflated coming from a terrorist regime that is counting unregistered deaths and didn’t control for natural deaths (these are the facts we know) are still “in all likelihood” an underrepresentation.
You go on to defend the “human shield” tactic. Nothing to add, except noticing it.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext
https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/israeli-armys-use-palestinian-civilians-human-shields-has-been-documented-large-scale

On September 11 2024 02:12 PremoBeats wrote:
No Palestinian question
So are you trying to say that there are no issues in any society that differing groups face/cause or that these issues need political discussion? That is simply straight up denying reality once again.
And again: Pointing issues out, does not mean that this is a justification for an eradication of said group. You are presenting a hyper extreme slippery-slope-fallacy with Palestine. You seem to understand the principle with the pay gap… you just have to transfer it to me raising issues about the relationships between Israel/Egypt/Lebanon/Jordan and Palestine.

Protestors
I am using a value judgment, of course. I am neither foolish, nor cowardly enough to not say that I think that some cultures or societies and their laws are more moral or humane. Thus, I can clearly say that I think that what is described as Western values is more moral or humane than the laws and societal expectations in Palestine.
I reject the treatment of homo- and transsexuals in Palestine.
I reject that they need to fear death or violence because of their sexuality in Palestine.
I reject how women are not equal to men in marriage and divorce, child custody or inheritance in Palestine (but not only there… everywhere it occurs).
And if ignorant protestors are not aware of these differences, I think it is perfectly fine to debunk their views, on top of their wrong perceptions about Apartheid and the justification of barbaric acts of terrorism, as I pointed out in my initial notion.
So far, I used casualty ratios, delivered food and calculations of nutritional needs to make my point. Do you also need statistical evidence for the shortcomings of homo- and transsexuals and women? I seriously thought that there wouldn't be much contention surrounding these issues, but if you need numbers, let me know.

Safety concerns
What is your point here? I asked for you to give quotes where I said what you posted here:
“You were telling me that Israel could want Palestinians out not because they want to ethnically cleanse Palestine but because they're very afraid of Palestinians and it's a safety concern,”
You were giving quotes where I simply was speaking about safety concerns. In none of the quotes did I say anything about Israelis wanting Palestinians “out” or how I think that Israel would want Palestinians out.


The 1st talks about security concerns, but not “wanting Palestinians out”
The 2nd quote is only talking about the casualty rate.
The 3rd even says “without the intention to comment indiscriminate violence against civilians”

They all 3 were in response to your foolish idea that the whole government AND military of Israel are engaging in a top to bottom indiscriminate killings of Palestinians where they want to end as many Palestinians as they can get away with. These three points were simply alternate reasons I described, as to why civilians die in war times and what the potential reasoning of the Israeli government are to continue the war.

So where did I say that Isrealis “wanting Palestinians out”?

Qatari money
What are you even talking about?
I simply gave a potential set of motives that Netanyahu could have had.
Until 2018: Giving funds, resources and materials to the Gazan local authorities with the potential intentions of helping the infrastructure and strengthening Hamas to prevent an unification (both can be true at the same time)
Until/after 7th of October: Realize that Hamas was mis-using the goods and stopping all further shipments except foods, water and electricity

I simply gave a potential motif that was laid out in one of the articles on this topic.

Your casualty number question
You didn’t answer this:
“You're continuously saying that Israel isn't killing enough people for you to be bothered. “
Quote this. Where did I say this? If I did so continuously, it should be easy. I only said that casualties are a given in any war and that Israel’s numbers are very good in comparison.

Being 1 above or below a limit of several thousands is simply completely ridiculous. A war does not become wrong because of one death.
War crimes are not judged by the amount but by the intention.

But if I should give you a relative number:
I’d say being higher than the average of comparable conflicts could (not would necessarily) indicate that Israel is really not giving a fuck about civilians.
Mosul 1:4 to 1:5
Aleppo 1:4
Grozny 1:10
Beirut 1:3 to 1:5
Sarajevo 1:3 to 1:4
So the lowest average would be 1:4.8.
But then we would need to subtract natural death numbers.
We would also need to account for deaths caused by Hamas (for example because of rockets that were fired at Israel and landed on Palestinian soil).
We would also need to account for Hamas deliberately firing from safe zones or civilian infrastructure.
We would also need to get an explanation about the impossible behavior of the data sets (“resurrection“ of fallen Hamas combatants or how the cumulated number of dead women and children exceeds the total numbers of deaths in certain periods).
We would also need to account for the fact that 10k of the deaths are not IDed.
So I guess a very low rate would be 1:5… 1:6 is probably a more realistic lower limit, given all the question marks on the death count so far.

Do you have a number?

STC casualty rate
The links don’t speak about the fact that the numbers that are being discussed have been controlled for natural deaths. Add to that list people killed by Hamas because of their rockets. Or the civilians that were killed by Hamas when retreating to the safe zones.
Your link also doesn’t speak about the STC casualty rate and The Lancet speaks about estimations, so I don’t know why you posted it.
I already said that all soldiers that used civilians the way your second link described should be put on trial before, when someone else posted a link in regards to this issue.
Again: The STC casualty rate does not imply deliberate killing, especially taking into account comparable conflicts and the challenges the IDF faces with Hamas’ human shield tactics and hiding behind/below civilian infrastructure
Another thing I didn’t bring up so far: A STC casualty rate of 1:1,5 equates to 40% killed soldiers. Given that 70-75% of the Gazan population are women and children, these numbers reflect a significant avoidance of the IDF of civilian casualties.

Humanitarian aid
As you didn’t address this:
This bullshit metric (“ :D “) is what international standards are. One can calculate how much energy a
crisis area needs, based on what a daily energy intake per person is and how many persons live in a certain area. But as you don’t like facts all that much, I didn’t think this would convince you.
So you deny that only less than 2% of trucks have been prohibited from entering?
You also deny these statistical numbers that are conjured in any conflict zone where humanitarian aid is needed and that the calculations have shown that more than 50% of the required nutritional energy has entered Gaza?
Which would suggest that the issue is not the providing side (Israel) but the distribution side (Hamas and humanitarian organizations that are attacked by Hamas).

On September 11 2024 04:14 Nebuchad wrote:


There are issues in society that an ethnic group can face, because of racism and its ramifications. There are no issues in society that an ethnic group can cause, and if someone reckons I'm wrong about this, then they believe that racism against this ethnic group is justified as it's an ethnicity that causes problems. Very simple point, obviously correct.

The protestors don't think Palestinians should be mass murdered, that's all. Like normal people, they don't care about their values. Similarly when you decided that it was wrong to kill gay Palestinians for being gay, you didn't stop and wonder how many of those gay Palestinians were racists and had values that are incompatible with the West, because no one cares. You come in, like a weird person, and ask them why they're protesting the death of these people, don't they know that these people had the wrong values. But you refuse to take ownership of any of the direct consequences of this moral position.

Then you spent an absurd amount of time making up dumb things to explain why you're not answering the questions I asked, it seems too boring to address all of it I'll spare the thread. I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing with this, like, I understand that you can't really answer my questions because you would have to admit that you were wrong and no one ever does that on the internet, but surely a better way to do that would have been to stop answering, rather than pretending you're getting lost in the minutiae of very straightforward questions.

And I did address the point about humanitarian aid, I told you that I didn't care.

On September 11 2024 16:39 PremoBeats wrote:
No Palestinian question
"There are no issues in society that an ethnic group can cause"
What kind of delusional statement is that? Rape or knife offenses going up because of certain groups in many European countries is just a conspiracy theory or how do you explain these statistics? Or grooming gangs in the UK? Black on black crimes in the States? All these groups do not cause issues in relation to other groups? This is seriously hilarious…
“If I believed that there was a problem with a particular group of humans based on their ethnicity, then what I would do is be racist against this ethnicity. “
It would only be racist if you would say that a certain group is causing problems BECAUSE OF THEIR ethnicity. Or generalize EVERY member of that ethnicity. Pointing out issues ABOUT certain groups WITHOUT GENERALIZING is not racist. How else would one talk about these things?
Or are these statistics, disproving your notion, ones that you "don't care about" or that you simply don't address like other facts that are inconvenient? As long as you can happily tell your narrative, facts or statistics don't need to be considered, it seems.

Further, I wasn’t only talking about ethnic groups, as I brought in the pay gap to undermine your hyper extreme slippery-slope-fallacy which argued that talking about issues surrounding Palestinians means that I am posing a Palestinian question. Again: I do not. The same way people that are talking about knife or rape crimes or black on black crime are simply looking for potential solutions by talking about an issue, I simply made a point about the behavior of Palestinians in hosting countries. And the “conclusions” I came up with were posted in this very thread several times and DO NOT include genocide or ethnic cleansing (demilitarization, re-education, supervision, Israel clearing settlements similar to 05 as well as me saying multiple times that I think that a Palestinian born in Jerusalem should have the a right to a state in Palestine).

By the way, you still did not word out what you think “my conclusion” is.

Protestors
I never asked anyone why they are protesting the deaths of people. Stop making unfounded accusations, I won't let them go through.
I explained that I talked with these protestors and that I realized while talking to them that they have very skewed perceptions about many things. People simply parroted the ideas of genocide, forced famine or Apartheid without having a clue about the numbers. Many were shocked how much help Israel is sending into Gaza or that they are the ones repairing and maintaining the pipes that provide water to Gaza. They simply did not know.
In Cologne, where I visited these protests, there are naturally many queers and gays (it is one of the most queer and gay friendly cities in the world)... these people walk around with "Queers or gays for Palestine" signs, not realizing that they would not even life freely in Palestine.
Thus I said that the protestors' views about an Apartheid state, barbaric actions of terrorists and them cherishing a way of life that is incompatible with Western values should be debunked. Of course they can and should protest against the war. I simply think that many of their narratives are wrong (like Apartheid, like genocide, like Israel killing indiscriminately), as the numbers and statistics show.
But I never asked anyone - like you falsely claimed - why they are protesting the death of people/the war in general, as that would be stupid to do.
Also, I was never justifying the killing of people because "they had the wrong values", if that is what you are implying (I was talking about the way of life that is present for women and LGTBQ when comparing values). From the start, I said that all these deaths are tragic and unfortunate. But the deaths that Israel is responsible for (roughly 41k minus the natural deaths, minus the people Hamas killed, minus the combatants, minus the numbers that led to impossible behavior of data sets, plus deaths that are not yet accounted, etc.) are collateral of a war. That is the "justification" for their deaths and as I said countless times, the IDF overall is doing an insanely commendable job of preventing non-combatant casualties if we compare the numbers with similar conflict zones and add Gaza specific context.

Your questions
Which questions of yours did I not answer in my last wall of text?
In my opinion, you are asking the wrong questions and began to realize that you need to put words in my mouth or twist my original statements or else your questions don't make sense.
Or that we can pick the numbers apart, but it wouldn't really go according to your narrative (which is fine... people learn new things and adapt their views, like the protestors I talked to.. but don't put that on me).

Where did I say that Israel is “wanting Palestinians out”?

“You're continuously saying that Israel isn't killing enough people for you to be bothered. “
Quote this. Where did I say this? If I did so continuously, it should be easy. I only said that casualties are a given in any war and that Israel’s numbers are very good in comparison.

All the other things
If at any time you want to address/talk about one of the following, let me know:

STC casualty rate as a means to discuss the "deliberate" killing of Palestinians (or the genocide accusations that have been flying around here too)
- How controlling for natural death numbers would affect the STC
- How many people were killed by Hamas and the effect on the STC
- How many people were killed by the IDF in retaliation to Hamas building bases in and firing from safety zones and the effect on the STC
- What kind of metric we should use to account for deaths that are caused by Hamas using civilian infrastructure (also affecting the STC)
- What to do about the impossible behavior of the data sets in regards to the “resurrections“ of fallen Hamas combatants or how the cumulated number of dead women and children exceeds the total numbers of deaths in certain periods
- How to account for the 10k "dead" that have not been IDed... who were they? Did they even exist?
- Explaining how the deliberate killing of a 70-75% women/children-population leads to 40% killed combatants

The massive amounts of medical and nutritional aid Israel provided as a means to discuss the accusations of "forced famine/starvation" (or again genocide)
- How much aid was put inside Gaza
- How that compares to the international standards of crisis areas (50% more than what is actually needed, based on calculations, entered Gaza)
- How much percent of trucks actually were prohibited from entering (less than 2%)
- What happens when the trucks have entered Gaza (for example over 650 trucks post-inspection at Kerem Shalom)
- Hamas attacking humanitarian aid trucks, stealing and reselling the goods on the black market at inflated prices like Palestinians reported
- Israel actively repairing and maintaining pipes that Hamas has damaged in order to get water to Gaza