In wake of teen deaths, Israel vows to crush Hamas

[Viking]

Really? What would you suggest?

Stop colonization, start negotiating with Palestinans without doing everything you can to provoke them, don't answer to Hamas provocations while the peace process starts.  Eventually, agree to dismantle most settlements, in exchange for no right of return to proper Israeli territory.

Colonisation is an asshole move but pretending that Hamas or most other Palestinian organisation would on the long term honour a deal where they revoke their claim on Israel is ridiculous.

The same thing was said of Jordan.  And Egypt.  So far, the peace holds.

Israel would have nothing to lose really.  If a newly independant and contiguous palestine starts doing shit at the isreali border, they simply bomb&invade like they do now, push the people out, annex the territory.

An independant Palestine would find it in its best interest to control Hamas& other terrorists to avoid them using the territory to attack Israel.  Just like Syria is very careful not to allow Hezbloah to strike from its country, despite very obvious support.

1. Egypt and Jordan renounced their claims on Gaza and the West Bank respectively in their peace agreements.

2. Israel did precisely that with Gaza, it up and left. No blocade no bombardment no occupation just a security check when passing through the border. It obviously didn't work. This was the test case for unilateral withdrawal, the Palestinians failed this test monumentally. Gaza was in teh hands of Mohammed Dahlan and the PA security forces when Israel left. When HAMAS decided to take over Dahlan fled and the PA security forces got thrown off the roof of the Gaza Police HQ.

3. The reason Syria is very very very careful not to let anybody use Syria to attack israel is because Syria only has one army and this is it's last army. It can't afford to replace it's tanks and airplanes... again. The reson Assad is careful is not due to war with Israel but due to the Ikhwanul Muslimin - The Muslim Brothers, which revolted in Hama in 1982 and were 20 thousand (at least) were butchered when Assad carpet bombed the city with heavy artillery (a clear contrast to what the israelis are doing). Unlike the PA Syria is a well ordered (or was until recently) police state, the PA is a chaotic Police State where Abbas is riding the tiger, not leading it.

[Syt]

The Gaza Strip (360 km²) is smaller than Vienna (414 km²), and less than half the size of Berlin (891 km²).

[Valmy]

The Gaza Strip (360 km²) is smaller than Vienna (414 km²), and less than half the size of Berlin (891 km²).

Too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum.

[Viking]

The Gaza Strip (360 km²) is smaller than Vienna (414 km²), and less than half the size of Berlin (891 km²).

And?

[The Minsky Moment]

The UN Relief and Works Agency, which is about far from being a pro-Israel shill as it is possible to be, disclosed that it had found 20 rockets stashed by Hamas in a school the Agency runs in Gaza (obviously without its knowledge).

Of course we all understand here without saying what a despicable organization Hamas is, but sometimes it is worth reminding ourselves with the details.  These are people that not only refuse to accept any convention normally binding on civilized people.  They actually revel in the deployment of their own children as meat shields.

I tend to side with the Berkut side of the debate in the sense that the Israeli offensive really is pointless and why heap even more suffering on this population for no end.  But really there is no good policy here.  Hamas' strategy revolves around  getting the people they are supposed to protect killed in the most media-attracting gruesome way possible, and one way or another they are going to get that job done.

[Berkut]

In short, to disagree with Berkut as to the effectiveness of a military campaign means you are an empathy-less monster.

I'm done arguing with you about this. You are not being at all reasonable, and are just slinging insults.

In short, you cannot respond to the facts, so are going to declare me "unreasonable" and storm away. OK.

If being "unreasonable" means I don't think killing a few hundred women and children and injuring a thousand more is a "reasonable" way to respond to being attacked by totally ineffective weapons, then I can live with "unreasonable".

And you can live with lacking empathy, I am sure, because you think killing three times as many civilians as combatants is fine - and you would totally feel the same way if it was Israelis being killed in the hundreds. Of course. Because you are so empathetic.

In short, unable to refute my facts, you resort to name-calling - "lacking empathy". Even when I was arguing with actual euroweenies on Paradox, none actually resorted to such nonsense.

I suppose the discerning reader will note I am *not* calling you a "Hamas apologist" or "useful Hamas idiot", because saying that would be dumb. I know full well you do not support Hamas. You are arguing because you believe your point to be right.

It is just sad that you cannot extend to others the same courtesy, of not dumbing down.

Saying you lack empathy is name calling?

You are arguing that Israel is perfectly justified if they kill 3 or 4 times as many civilians as they do combatants in order to stop even the remotest possibility of any Israeli being injured or killed - that you feel that causing thousands of Palestinian *civilian* casualties is justified because it *might* possibly save some tiny number of Israeli casualties, and the data we were arguing about was literally ZERO Israeli casualties compared to over 1200 Palestinians, mostly civilians.

Saying you "lack empathy" is about as mild a characterization as I can imagine for that position.

[Razgovory]

It seems unfortunate that not enough people are calling them on this.  It was my understanding that if one party militarizes a civilian structure (by say putting a rockets in a school), and civilians die because of it, the culpability falls on the side that militarized it first.

[Berkut]

Really? What would you suggest?

Stop colonization, start negotiating with Palestinans without doing everything you can to provoke them, don't answer to Hamas provocations while the peace process starts.  Eventually, agree to dismantle most settlements, in exchange for no right of return to proper Israeli territory.

Colonisation is an asshole move but pretending that Hamas or most other Palestinian organisation would on the long term honour a deal where they revoke their claim on Israel is ridiculous.

The same thing was said of Jordan.  And Egypt.  So far, the peace holds.

Israel would have nothing to lose really.  If a newly independant and contiguous palestine starts doing shit at the isreali border, they simply bomb&invade like they do now, push the people out, annex the territory.

An independant Palestine would find it in its best interest to control Hamas& other terrorists to avoid them using the territory to attack Israel.  Just like Syria is very careful not to allow Hezbloah to strike from its country, despite very obvious support.

1. Egypt and Jordan renounced their claims on Gaza and the West Bank respectively in their peace agreements.

2. Israel did precisely that with Gaza, it up and left. No blocade no bombardment no occupation just a security check when passing through the border. It obviously didn't work. This was the test case for unilateral withdrawal, the Palestinians failed this test monumentally. Gaza was in teh hands of Mohammed Dahlan and the PA security forces when Israel left. When HAMAS decided to take over Dahlan fled and the PA security forces got thrown off the roof of the Gaza Police HQ.

3. The reason Syria is very very very careful not to let anybody use Syria to attack israel is because Syria only has one army and this is it's last army. It can't afford to replace it's tanks and airplanes... again. The reson Assad is careful is not due to war with Israel but due to the Ikhwanul Muslimin - The Muslim Brothers, which revolted in Hama in 1982 and were 20 thousand (at least) were butchered when Assad carpet bombed the city with heavy artillery (a clear contrast to what the israelis are doing). Unlike the PA Syria is a well ordered (or was until recently) police state, the PA is a chaotic Police State where Abbas is riding the tiger, not leading it.

That is an excellent characterization.

However, it does miss out on the fact that Israel NOW is doing plenty to exacerbate the situation - I agree that to a great extent this is due to the fact that the attempt at conciliation failed badly last time, hence the current will of the people seems to be "Fine, fuck them" and they have the leaders that share that view.

I understand how they got to where they are, it is perfectly understandable, and to some extent predictable - maybe even perversely reasonable.

The problem is that it isn't somewhere that can lead to peace.

Reconciliation may have failed last time, but it is going to have to be tried again. And again.

The only other alternative is the Hansmeister option - genocide.

[Berkut]

It seems unfortunate that not enough people are calling them on this.  It was my understanding that if one party militarizes a civilian structure (by say putting a rockets in a school), and civilians die because of it, the culpability falls on the side that militarized it first.

Yep, that is straight out of the Geneva Conventions.

[Syt]

The Gaza Strip (360 km²) is smaller than Vienna (414 km²), and less than half the size of Berlin (891 km²).

And?

I like to remind myself of the scale of places sometimes, because they seem "larger" in the news if that makes any sense.

[Malthus]

Saying you lack empathy is name calling?

You are arguing that Israel is perfectly justified if they kill 3 or 4 times as many civilians as they do combatants in order to stop even the remotest possibility of any Israeli being injured or killed - that you feel that causing thousands of Palestinian *civilian* casualties is justified because it *might* possibly save some tiny number of Israeli casualties, and the data we were arguing about was literally ZERO Israeli casualties compared to over 1200 Palestinians, mostly civilians.

Saying you "lack empathy" is about as mild a characterization as I can imagine for that position.

You construct a straw-man characature of my position, based on facts you have now admitted to be questionable, in order to double down on a personal insult. Nice.

Yes, Berkut, if I thought your argument on this point was correct, and persisted in supporting Israel's campaign nonetheless, I would "lack empathy" or whatever worse characterization you wish to make.

The fine, sublte point you appear quite unable to grasp is that I happen to disagree with your argument.

Now, I know this is somewhat astoinishing to you - after all, we have only been arguing it ad nauseum - but try to imagine, see if you can stretch your brain this far: reasonable people can disagree on stuff. Of course, the fact that the actual facts indicated I was more in the right in the first place should offer you a clue as to why reasonable people can disagree over stuff - because our actual knowledge of the facts isn't perfect.

Now, I know I am wasting my electrons here. If you wish to go on thinking I "lack empathy" or whatever, feel free. 

[derspiess]

The Gaza Strip (360 km²) is smaller than Vienna (414 km²), and less than half the size of Berlin (891 km²).

And?

I like to remind myself of the scale of places sometimes, because they seem "larger" in the news if that makes any sense.

Looking at the place on Google Maps/World helps drive that point home.  It's such a tiny strip of land, yet so troublesome. 

[Ed Anger]

The Gaza Strip (360 km²) is smaller than Vienna (414 km²), and less than half the size of Berlin (891 km²).

And?

I like to remind myself of the scale of places sometimes, because they seem "larger" in the news if that makes any sense.

Looking at the place on Google Maps/World helps drive that point home.  It's such a tiny strip of land, yet so troublesome.

Fuel Air Explosives would solve the problem.

[Berkut]

Saying you lack empathy is name calling?

You are arguing that Israel is perfectly justified if they kill 3 or 4 times as many civilians as they do combatants in order to stop even the remotest possibility of any Israeli being injured or killed - that you feel that causing thousands of Palestinian *civilian* casualties is justified because it *might* possibly save some tiny number of Israeli casualties, and the data we were arguing about was literally ZERO Israeli casualties compared to over 1200 Palestinians, mostly civilians.

Saying you "lack empathy" is about as mild a characterization as I can imagine for that position.

You construct a straw-man characature of my position, based on facts you have now admitted to be questionable, in order to double down on a personal insult. Nice.

Yes, Berkut, if I thought your argument on this point was correct, and persisted in supporting Israel's campaign nonetheless, I would "lack empathy" or whatever worse characterization you wish to make.

The fine, sublte point you appear quite unable to grasp is that I happen to disagree with your argument.

Now, I know this is somewhat astoinishing to you - after all, we have only been arguing it ad nauseum - but try to imagine, see if you can stretch your brain this far: reasonable people can disagree on stuff. Of course, the fact that the actual facts indicated I was more in the right in the first place should offer you a clue as to why reasonable people can disagree over stuff - because our actual knowledge of the facts isn't perfect.

Now, I know I am wasting my electrons here. If you wish to go on thinking I "lack empathy" or whatever, feel free. 

You never at any point disputed the facts, you never at any time said "Yeah, that would be a good point Berkut, but I don't think those numbers are right, therefore..." Ironically, the fact that the numbers may have been wrong pretty much proves my point - there apparently aren't any numbers that would make you call for restraint - even possibly grossly inflated numbers and you are still "Yeah, sucks to be them, but too fucking bad..." You know, because you have so much empathy for their situation.

No, your argument was that Israel was justified and "reasonable" in taking actions that resulted in over a thousand civilians casualties, and that was ok, even though what they were supposedly trying to stop had almost no effect at all.

That is not a strawman or caricature, that is your position.

And of course reasonable people can disagree on stuff. But that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees on stuff is being reasonable - and arguing that it is "reasonable" to kill hundreds of people in order to stop something that isn't actually happening is not reasonable.

You can retreat to a sense of faux indignation if you like, but that isn't reasonable either.

[Malthus]

You never at any point disputed the facts, you never at any time said "Yeah, that would be a good point Berkut, but I don't think those numbers are right, therefore..." Ironically, the fact that the numbers may have been wrong pretty much proves my point - there apparently aren't any numbers that would make you call for restraint - even possibly grossly inflated numbers and you are still "Yeah, sucks to be them, but too fucking bad..." You know, because you have so much empathy for their situation.

No, your argument was that Israel was justified and "reasonable" in taking actions that resulted in over a thousand civilians casualties, and that was ok, even though what they were supposedly trying to stop had almost no effect at all.

That is not a strawman or caricature, that is your position.

And of course reasonable people can disagree on stuff. But that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees on stuff is being reasonable - and arguing that it is "reasonable" to kill hundreds of people in order to stop something that isn't actually happening is not reasonable.

You can retreat to a sense of faux indignation if you like, but that isn't reasonable either.

Dude. You know very well that what I was vigorously disputing was your absolutist conviction that the Israeli attacks were "disproportionate" because, according to you, they have had no effect on the accuracy of said rockets, and hence on Israeli casualties.

Now, proportinality has two parts - you measure civilian casualties against military objectives. You claimed that Israel was inflicting thousands of indiscriminate causualties and that the campaign was ineffective. I was saying that it is reasonable to assume that the campaign was effective - and in any event, the "burden" isn't proving the matter, but whether such effectiveness was a reasonable position.

You now admit you were wrong on the first part, but are clinging like grim death to the second - EVEN THOUGH to another poster, you actually conceded my point!

Yeah, Berkut, if you are right and the campaign was ineffective at saving Israeli lives and if I really believed you were right and supported the campaign anyway then supporting it would be evil. But, as has been amply demonstrated in this very thread, facts you thought were absolutely true have turned out to be questionable. How about this amazing notion - I happen to still think I was right? 

I can onlyu conclude that your pride will not allow you to back off of an insult once made.