Israel-Hamas War 2023

[viper37]

I am basing my understanding of the Anti-Israel movement on the organizations that lead the protests.  Like BDS.  What is yours based on?

You must be a fan of Blue Lives Matter.

[grumbler]

You must be a fan of Blue Lives Matter.

Does Blue Lives Matter have any relevance to the Israeli-Hamas war, or was this just a typical ad hom argument you employ when you are out of intellectual arguments?

[Razgovory]

I am basing my understanding of the Anti-Israel movement on the organizations that lead the protests.  Like BDS.  What is yours based on?

You must be a fan of Blue Lives Matter.

No.  Try again.

[viper37]

You must be a fan of Blue Lives Matter.

Does Blue Lives Matter have any relevance to the Israeli-Hamas war, or was this just a typical ad hom argument you employ when you are out of intellectual arguments?

The latter.

There's not much point having an intellectual argument with Raz on this subject after 283 pages.

[Tonitrus]

I am basing my understanding of the Anti-Israel movement on the organizations that lead the protests.  Like BDS.  What is yours based on?

You must be a fan of Blue Lives Matter.

I am anti-Smurf myself.

[Josquius]

This situation with the raid that rescued four Israeli hostages shows the magical thinking involved by the Palestinians and pro-Pal forces in the West.

The Palestinian doctor and journalist who were keeping Israeli hostages locked up were obviously Hamas terrorists--civilians don't hold hostages by force. But now that they are dead they are innocent civilians. In Gaza anyone who dies becomes an innocent civilian, regardless of what they were doing up to the moment of death.

They are all civilian refugee pregnant children journalists.

You mean they are all terrorists who were armed and going to shoot the Israelis. Even the toddlers.

[The Minsky Moment]

You mean they are all terrorists who were armed and going to shoot the Israelis. Even the toddlers.

It's true, the armed terrorists did shoot Israeli toddlers. 

(Perhaps you meant something else?)

[Razgovory]

Hamas leader says 'we have the Israelis right where we want them' in leaked messages, WSJ reports

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/11/middleeast/sinwar-hamas-israel-ceasefire-hostage-talks-intl/index.html

The military leader of Hamas, Yahya Sinwar, said that the Palestinian militant group has the upper hand over Israel in the war in Gaza, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal, citing leaked messages the newspaper said it had seen.

"We have the Israelis right where we want them," Sinwar told Hamas' political leadership in Qatar recently, according to one of the messages, the WSJ reported Monday. The date of the message isn't clear but suggests that Sinwar is pressing for the war to continue.

The WSJ said it reviewed dozens of messages sent to ceasefire negotiators from Sinwar, who has been in hiding since the October 7 attack on Israel which sparked a devastating war on Gaza, killing more than 37,000 people in the enclave, according to Gaza health authorities, and leaving much of the strip destroyed.

The WSJ reported that in one message Sinwar said civilian deaths in previous conflicts were "necessary sacrifices," citing past independence-related wars in places like Algeria.

As Israel prepared to enter Rafah before the Muslim month of Ramadan in February, the WSJ said Sinwar urged Hamas' political leaders not to make concessions and instead push for a permanent end to the war.

"Israel's journey in Rafah won't be a walk in the park," Sinwar allegedly said in a message to the Hamas political leadership.

CNN has not seen the leaked messages viewed by the WSJ and is not able to confirm the authenticity of the communications.

Commenting on the WSJ report, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said on X: "Sinwar profits off the deaths of Gazan civilians, calling them "necessary sacrifices" in order to urge international pressure on Israel's efforts to eliminate his terrorist organization."

Mediators are waiting for a Hamas response to an Israeli proposal presented by President Joe Biden last month – which aims to release the hostages in Gaza and implement a ceasefire there.

While the US is pushing those who have sway over Hamas to pressure the group to accept the deal, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken also made it clear that the US believes that the group's leader, Sinwar, is the ultimate decision-maker.

"I think there are there those who have influenced, but influence is one thing, actually getting a decision made is the is another thing. I don't think anyone other than the Hamas leadership in Gaza actually are the ones who can make decisions," Blinken said, adding that "that is what we are waiting on."

Blinken said that Hamas' answer to the proposal will reveal the group's priorities.

"We await the answer from Hamas in and that will speak volumes about what they want, what they're looking for, who they're looking after," Blinken said. "Are they looking after one guy who may be for now safe ... I don't know, 10 stories underground somewhere in Gaza, while the people that he purports to represent continue to suffer in a crossfire of his own making? Or will he do what's necessary to actually move this to a better place, to help end the suffering of people to help bring real security to Israelis and Palestinians alike."

In early messages to ceasefire negotiators, Sinwar seemed "surprised" by the brutality of the October 7 attack on Israel.

"Things went out of control," Sinwar said in one of his messages, according to the WSJ, adding he was "referring to gangs taking civilian women and children as hostages."

"People got caught up in this, and that should not have happened," Sinwar said, according to the WSJ.

The US-designated terrorist had also expressed discontent after not being consulted for a meeting between the Hamas political leaders with other Palestinian factions, calling the meeting "shameful and outrageous."

"As long as fighters are still standing and we have not lost the war, such contacts should be immediately terminated," he said, adding that "we have the capabilities to continue fighting for months."

He had also compared the war in Gaza to a 7th-century battle in Karbala, Iraq, a monumental moment in Islamic history where the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad was killed.

"We have to move forward on the same path we started," Sinwar reportedly wrote. "Or let it be a new Karbala."

His comments emerged as 14 of the 15 United Nations Security Council members voted in favor of Monday's US-drafted resolution, with only Russia abstaining – the first time the council has endorsed such a plan to end the war. Israel is not a member of the UNSC, and so did not vote.

The comprehensive three-stage peace deal, which sets out conditions intended to lead to the eventual release of all remaining hostages, in return for a permanent ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli forces, was first laid out publicly by US President Biden on May 31.

The landmark vote means the UNSC now joins other major global bodies in backing the plan, increasing international pressure on both Hamas and Israel to end the conflict.

Hamas welcomed the adoption of the UNSC resolution, saying in a statement it was ready to engage with mediators to implement measures such as the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, prisoner exchange, returning residents to their homes and the "rejection of any demographic change or reduction in the area of the Gaza Strip."

The resolution says Israel has accepted the plan, and US officials have repeatedly emphasized Israel had agreed to the proposal – despite other public comments from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that suggest otherwise.

[OttoVonBismarck]

This whole push for a ceasefire shows the extreme fecklessness of the morally bankrupt Biden administration.

They are out simping to Palestinians in an effort to get anything they can call a "ceasefire" passed. Meanwhile, in spite of Blinken's repeated comments on it, the actual decision makers in Israel say there will never be an end to the war without both the return of all hostages and the removal of Hamas as the governing force in Gaza. As best I can tell nothing in the "Israeli" (which some are saying is really an American proposal) deal will actually satisfy those conditions.

[Razgovory]

It's really weird that protesters outside the White House Saturday were praising Hamas and Hezbollah and encouraging them to "kill another Zionist".  The world has gotten really weird.  20 years ago someone would have kicked you in the face if you were out there praising Islamic terrorists.  I must of skipped a page here, but why are young leftist siding with the most reactionary religious fascists in the world?  If a group of armed White Christians calling themselves the "Army of God" and holding the same positions as Hezbollah, started marching around would they support it?

[Valmy]

I must of skipped a page here, but why are young leftist siding with the most reactionary religious fascists in the world?  If a group of armed White Christians calling themselves the "Army of God" and holding the same positions as Hezbollah, started marching around would they support it?

I haven't heard this point of view expressed in any context outside of people in these protests. It isn't like there are videos all over youtube by leftists saying "I support Hamas and Hezbollah and here is why you should to." So I don't know. Or there might be, I just haven't seen them.

Usually I hear something like "well of course they turn to Hamas, because of the oppressive evil of the colonial regime" or something. So Israel created/strengthens Hamas because of their policies. Not that Hamas is great.

But if you support Israel those protests should be a big boon to your cause. Nothing would help the Israel cause in the United States than Palestinian supporters being seen to directly support Hamas and Hezbollah, that is almost too perfect. To the point I am slightly skeptical those sentiments are really that widely held by the protestors 

But it is certainly possible and one of the three reasons I generally do not participate in these sorts of big protests:

1. They tend to freak out moderates and strengthen opponents, key causes tend to flounder and eventually lose when too many of these big protests spring up all around the country. So, probably productive in some amount to draw in media attention and get people talking and then at some point become counter-productive. But where is that line?

2. Extreme views tend to either carry the day or seen to dominate the discourse. So we go from "hold police accountable for killing civilians, particularly black ones!" to "defund all the police in some vague way." "The United States shouldn't be funding a country with a well funded military whose main job seems to be killing civilians and poorly equipped militia men in a conflict they seem to be actively making worse through their own policies, and further they seem to actively undermine the two-state solution favored by the United States" to "Hurrah for Hamas Hezbollah! Murder those colonialist Zionist Jews!" Which, you know, I would like those latter ideas to be workshopped and developed a little before I start stomping around chanting for it.

3. They sometimes function as a cover for violence and looting.

[Valmy]

This whole push for a ceasefire shows the extreme fecklessness of the morally bankrupt Biden administration.

They are out simping to Palestinians in an effort to get anything they can call a "ceasefire" passed. Meanwhile, in spite of Blinken's repeated comments on it, the actual decision makers in Israel say there will never be an end to the war without both the return of all hostages and the removal of Hamas as the governing force in Gaza. As best I can tell nothing in the "Israeli" (which some are saying is really an American proposal) deal will actually satisfy those conditions.

Well that is the thing. Our goals and their goals are not compatible. We want a peaceful two state solution, anything else would be disastrous for our own policy goals in the Middle East.

If some event happens in the future where the existence of Israel is in jeopardy, I have no issue supporting them in that struggle. But that is not today.

Israel is going to re-occupy and re-settle Gaza. They have both the means and opportunity to do so, and nobody is willing or able to stop them.

So let's not pretend the United States and Israel are on the same side here. We shouldn't be funding them and working with them to achieve contradictory policy goals. It just isn't workable.

We shouldn't fund them and we should only support factions in this conflict that agree with our goals. Which, as far as I know, consists of a few tiny Israeli parties.

As far as morality, I am not sure ethnic cleansing is really the big moral movement we need to be involved in.

[OttoVonBismarck]

You support a two-state solution, I do not. I get to vote too--and I see little evidence Trump is very committed to a two state solution. A two state solution may be the preferred solution for Foggy Bottom dwellers and the egg heads at Foreign Policy magazine, but there is little evidence blind adherence to an unworkable idea is advancing our goals in the Middle East.

I also think you are outright spewing fake news by stating Israel is going to "resettle" Gaza. I see no evidence that is likely to occur.

Propping up a failed two state solution to protect Hamas isn't just bad, it is monstrously immoral. It would be akin to arguing Iraq should be forced to accept a two state solution with ISIS being the other state back in the mid-2010s.

[Josquius]

You mean they are all terrorists who were armed and going to shoot the Israelis. Even the toddlers.

It's true, the armed terrorists did shoot Israeli toddlers. 

(Perhaps you meant something else?)

I was echoing back the "They are all civilian refugee pregnant children journalists".
I've far more often seen Israel apologists claiming the Palestinian casualties are all terrorists and the dead kids are really all 17 year old soldiers.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The vast majority of the residents of Gaza would meet anyone's definition of terrorist. The only exceptions in large number are very young children (say under age 12.)